Writ Petition No. 602 of 2007 · Bombay High Court
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 27 Nov 2007
- Bench
- R S MOHITE
Provisions considered
- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 s. 138
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ss. 311, 313
Judgment
Mr.R.S.Patwardhan for petitioner. M.H.Mhatre-APP-State. CORAM : R.S. MOHITE, J. CORAM : R.S. MOHITE, J. CORAM : R.S. MOHITE, J. DATE : 27TH NOVEMBER, 2007. DATE : 27TH NOVEMBER, 2007. DATE : 27TH NOVEMBER, 2007. P.C. :- P.C. :- P.C. :- . Heard the applicant. This writ petition impugned the order dated 5th March, 2007 whereby the trial court has rejected the application of production of a cheque after enclosure of evidence. According to the Advocate for the petitioner, through inadvertent mistake the cheque remained to be produced in the Court in proceedings under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. :: 2 :: After the evidence was over, at the stage of statement under section 313 of Cr.P.C., the application dated 5th March, 2007 was made. In my view, the application has been correctly rejected because the application was only for production of cheques. There is no provision for mere production of such documents since the document will have to be produced and proved by examination of a proper witness. Hence, the petition is rejected with liberty to the petitioner to make the proper application under section 311 of Cr.P.C.
Such application is made, the same should be considered and disposed off on merits. Petition is disposed off with the aforesaid directions. (R.S. MOHITE, J.) (R.S. MOHITE, J.)
(R.S. MOHITE, J.)
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — s. 138; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — ss. 311, 313.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 27 Nov 2007. The bench was R S MOHITE.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.