Full Judgment
O.P. Bishnoi, J.
1. This revision petition has been filed by the accused persons against an order dated 3-7-2002 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bar, Distt. Pali. In a complaint filed by the respondent No. 2 Manakraj, the three petitioners were being tried for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the said Court. The complainant examined himself as PW-1 and closed his evidence on 27-11-2001 after PW-2 Ishwar Chand was examined. The learned Court fixed the case for recording the statements of the accused persons under Section 313 of the Cr. P.C. and ordered that on the next date the accused persons shall remain present in the Court for the said purpose. In spite of the direction on most of the dates the accused persons were not present and ultimately their statements were recorded under Section 313 of the Cr. P.C. on 3-5-2002. Thereafter, an application under Section 91 of the Cr. P.C. was moved by the accused persons and a request was made that the sales tax return of the complainant, 'Khata Bahi', 'Rokar Bahi', balance-sheet for the year 1999-2000 and audit report be produced by the complainant. This application was dismissed by the learned trial Court on 3-7-2002. Feeling aggrieved this revision petition has been filed by the accused persons.
2. The learned counsel for the accused-petitioners has argued that in the facts and circumstances of the case the application deserved to be allowed and the order of dismissal is unsustainable. A judgment of Madras High Court in the case of Sri Murugan Agencies v. Khaitan and Company, (1999) 4 Rec Cri R 415, has been cited. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and I find no merit in this petition.
3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though the cheque in question for Rs. 1,50,000/- was issued by the accused Anil Garg on 8-6-99 since the goods in question were actually not received, the accused persons were justified in advising the Bank to stop payment. It is argued that from the record, which has been prayed to be summoned, it would become clear that as a matter of fact the material in question was never sent to the accused persons by the complainant.
4. After going through the record of the case I find that in the facts and circumstances of the case the said contention is unacceptable, During the course of arguments the learned counsel for the petitioners has asserted that the letter Ex. P/27 purported to be signed by the accused Anil Garg actually was never sent and the signature of Anil Garg on Ex. P/27 is a forgery. I find that this contention apparently is an afterthought. Letter Ex. P/27 acknowledges that the material (clinker) in fact was received and towards the price of Rs. 1,47,770/- plus unloading expenses incurred by the complainant, the cheque in question for Rs. 1,50,000/- was being sent. The complainant was examined on 19-10-2001 and during cross-examination it is nowhere suggested that the letter Ex. P/27 was not issued for the signature of Anil Garg on Ex. P/27 is a forgery. Nor PW-2 Ishwar Chand who was examined on 27-11-2001 was cross-examined in this respect. I am of the opinion that there was no justification for the trial Court to allow the application moved by the accused persons.
5. In the result, the petition is found to be devoid of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed.