Full Judgment
A.C. Goyal, J.
1. Vide this petition Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the accused petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 6th May 2002, whereby the application of the accused petitioner Under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was dismissed.
2. Relevant brief facts of the case are that the complainant non-petitioner filed a complaint Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 (for short the 'Act'), with the averments that he advanced a sum of Rs. 60,000/- to the accused petitioner in the month of October 2000. Against this amount the accused petitioner issued a Cheque on 2nd December 2000 to the complainant. On presentation of that cheque to the concerned bank, the same was dishonoured. Thereafter a notice by registered post was sent to the accused petitioner but the accused petitioner did not arrange the payment.
3. Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 6, Jaipur City, Jaipur, after conducting an inquiry, took cognizance Under Section 138 of the Act, vide order dated 24th May 2001. After appearance of the accused petitioner, trial commenced. After recording the evidence of the complainant, the accused petitioner was examined as provided Under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the accused petitioner himself was examined as a defence witness upon his own prayer and the accused petitioner closed his evidence and the case was fixed for final arguments. Thereafter application Under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was filed with a prayer that the cheque in question was presented in the bank account of the accused petitioner or not, is to be decided and this is an important aspect for the offence Under Section 138 of the Act, and, therefore, Manager or any other official of the concerned bank should be summoned. Learned A.C.J.M. dismissed this application on the grounds that such an application at the stage of defence evidence was filed with the same prayer but the same was dismissed as not pressed by accused petitioner and secondly the accused himself in his statement admitted Ex.D.1 as his bank account and he also did not deny issuance of this cheque and thus, according to learned A.C.J.M. this application was filed only to delay the disposal of this case.
4. Learned Counsel for the accused petitioner referred his bank account and mainly contended that normally the bank charges rupees 25/- in case a cheque is presented in the bank account but no such entry finds place in the bank account of the petitioner and, therefore, it was necessary to allow the application Under Section 311 Cr.P.C, Per contra, learned Counsel for the complainant non-petitioner referred the statement of the accused himself and contended that no illegality has been committed while rejecting the application. I have considered the rival submissions and ....... of the view that the learned A.C.J.M. while rejecting the application has not committed any illegality and cogent reasons have been given for rejection of the same. It is significant to say that such an application was earlier filed on behalf of the accused petitioner and that too at the defence stage but that was dismissed as not pressed and keeping in view the statement of the accused petitioner himself, there is no merit in this petition. Therefore, this petition is hereby dismissed.