| SooperKanoon Citation | sooperkanoon.com/785422 |
| Subject | Banking;Criminal |
| Court | Chennai High Court |
| Decided On | Jan-25-1999 |
| Case Number | Crl. R.C. No. 384 of 1997 and Crl. M.P. No. 2241 of 1997 |
| Judge | M. Karpagavinayagam, J. |
| Reported in | 1999(2)CTC298 |
| Acts | Negiotable Instrument Act, 1881 -- Sections 138; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 -- Sections 91 |
| Appellant | Mrs. Saraswathi |
| Respondent | V. Balakrishnan |
| Appellant Advocate | Mr. D. Veerasekaran, Adv. |
| Respondent Advocate | Mr. K.S. Padmanabhan, Adv. |
Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]Code Contextecho "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Mrs Saraswathi Vs V Balakrishnan - Citation 785422 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '785422', 'acts' => 'Negiotable Instrument Act, 1881 -- Sections 138; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> -- Sections 91', 'appealno' => 'Crl. R.C. No. 384 of 1997 and Crl. M.P. No. 2241 of 1997', 'appellant' => 'Mrs. Saraswathi', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Mrs. Saraswathi Vs. V. Balakrishnan', 'casenote' => ' - ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' Mr. D. Veerasekaran, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Mr. K.S. Padmanabhan, Adv.', 'court' => 'Chennai', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1999-01-25', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'M. Karpagavinayagam, J.', 'judgement' => 'Acts/Rules/Orders:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Negiotable Instrument Act, 1881 -- Section 138;Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -- Section 91</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Judgment Pronounced by M. Karpagavinayagam, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This revision is directed against the order dismissing the application filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 91 Cr.P.C. to call for certain documents from the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Crime General, Egmore, registered in No. 1873/ACC(G) Camp/ 2.8.1995. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The complainant, the respondent herein filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the year 1995. Before the trial commenced, the petitioner filed an application on 5.11.1996 stating that the petitioner never borrowed any money from the complainant, that one Indira took away the cheque from the accused and the said Indira misused the same without the knowledge of the accused and that therefore, she filed a complaint to the police on 2.8.1995 and that during the said enquiry by the police, some of the persons were summoned and they were examined and that those documents are essential documents to disprove the case of the complainant and so, those documents have to be summoned. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. This application was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the request of the accused to summon the documents is even before the commencement of the prosecution evidence and that despite the alleged complaint at 2.8.1995, there is no effort taken by the petitioner/accused to stop the payment of the cheque through intimation to the Bank immediately after the alleged theft. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. While attacking the impugned order, Mr. Veerasekaran, the counsel for the petitioner, would submit that with reference 'to the same cheque the petitioner has given a complaint against one Indira on 2.8.1995 itself regarding the theft of the said cheque and some statements were recorded in the said case and if those documents are produced before the Court, it would enable the accused to disprove the complainant's case. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Heard the counsel for both. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. I am not inclined to agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Section 91 Cr.P.C. confers powers on the Court to order for production of any document, if it is necessary or desirable for the purpose of trial. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In this case, the defence of the petitioner is that the cheque in question was stolen by one Indira and regarding this a complaint was filed on 2.8.1995. Admittedly, there is no allegation in the said complaint that the respondent committed theft of the cheque in question. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. According to the complaint, the cheque issued by the petitioner in favour of the respondent was presented in the Bank on 4.10.1995 and the same was dishonoured. Thereafter, the complainant sent a statutory notice on 13.10.1995. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. As pointed out by the learned Magistrate, the complaint has been lodged with regard to the stolen cheque on 2.8.1995 itself, but even then there was no intimation by the accused to the Bank to stop the payment of the cheque, as it had been stolen. Moreover, the notice was issued by the complainant on 13.10.1995 which was received by the petitioner on 14.10.1995. There was no reply for this notice. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Under these circumstances, it is not understandable as to why documents relating to the theft complaint given against one Indira would be relevant to the issue to be decided in this case. When the Court feels that the documents sought to be summoned are unnecessary, the Court is entitled to reject the request of the petitioner. Therefore, in my view, there is no infirmity in the impugned order and as such, the revision is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Consequently, Crl.M.P. No. 2241 of 1997 is also dismissed. The trial Court is directed to go on with the trial as expeditiously as possible. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1999(2)CTC298', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'V. Balakrishnan', 'sub' => 'Banking;Criminal ', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'mrs-saraswathi-vs-v-balakrishnan', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '785422', (int) 1 => 'mrs-saraswathi-vs-v-balakrishnan' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Mrs Saraswathi Vs V Balakrishnan - Citation 785422 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '785422', 'acts' => 'Negiotable Instrument Act, 1881 -- Sections 138; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> -- Sections 91', 'appealno' => 'Crl. R.C. No. 384 of 1997 and Crl. M.P. No. 2241 of 1997', 'appellant' => 'Mrs. Saraswathi', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Mrs. Saraswathi Vs. V. Balakrishnan', 'casenote' => ' - ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' Mr. D. Veerasekaran, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Mr. K.S. Padmanabhan, Adv.', 'court' => 'Chennai', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1999-01-25', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'M. Karpagavinayagam, J.', 'judgement' => 'Acts/Rules/Orders:</p><p>Negiotable Instrument Act, 1881 -- Section 138;Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -- Section 91</p><p>Judgment Pronounced by M. Karpagavinayagam, J.</p><p>1. This revision is directed against the order dismissing the application filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 91 Cr.P.C. to call for certain documents from the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Crime General, Egmore, registered in No. 1873/ACC(G) Camp/ 2.8.1995. </p><p>2. The complainant, the respondent herein filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the year 1995. Before the trial commenced, the petitioner filed an application on 5.11.1996 stating that the petitioner never borrowed any money from the complainant, that one Indira took away the cheque from the accused and the said Indira misused the same without the knowledge of the accused and that therefore, she filed a complaint to the police on 2.8.1995 and that during the said enquiry by the police, some of the persons were summoned and they were examined and that those documents are essential documents to disprove the case of the complainant and so, those documents have to be summoned. </p><p>3. This application was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the request of the accused to summon the documents is even before the commencement of the prosecution evidence and that despite the alleged complaint at 2.8.1995, there is no effort taken by the petitioner/accused to stop the payment of the cheque through intimation to the Bank immediately after the alleged theft. </p><p>4. While attacking the impugned order, Mr. Veerasekaran, the counsel for the petitioner, would submit that with reference 'to the same cheque the petitioner has given a complaint against one Indira on 2.8.1995 itself regarding the theft of the said cheque and some statements were recorded in the said case and if those documents are produced before the Court, it would enable the accused to disprove the complainant's case. </p><p>5. Heard the counsel for both. </p><p>6. I am not inclined to agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Section 91 Cr.P.C. confers powers on the Court to order for production of any document, if it is necessary or desirable for the purpose of trial. </p><p>7. In this case, the defence of the petitioner is that the cheque in question was stolen by one Indira and regarding this a complaint was filed on 2.8.1995. Admittedly, there is no allegation in the said complaint that the respondent committed theft of the cheque in question. </p><p>8. According to the complaint, the cheque issued by the petitioner in favour of the respondent was presented in the Bank on 4.10.1995 and the same was dishonoured. Thereafter, the complainant sent a statutory notice on 13.10.1995. </p><p>9. As pointed out by the learned Magistrate, the complaint has been lodged with regard to the stolen cheque on 2.8.1995 itself, but even then there was no intimation by the accused to the Bank to stop the payment of the cheque, as it had been stolen. Moreover, the notice was issued by the complainant on 13.10.1995 which was received by the petitioner on 14.10.1995. There was no reply for this notice. </p><p>10. Under these circumstances, it is not understandable as to why documents relating to the theft complaint given against one Indira would be relevant to the issue to be decided in this case. When the Court feels that the documents sought to be summoned are unnecessary, the Court is entitled to reject the request of the petitioner. Therefore, in my view, there is no infirmity in the impugned order and as such, the revision is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Consequently, Crl.M.P. No. 2241 of 1997 is also dismissed. The trial Court is directed to go on with the trial as expeditiously as possible. <p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1999(2)CTC298', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'V. Balakrishnan', 'sub' => 'Banking;Criminal ', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'mrs-saraswathi-vs-v-balakrishnan' $args = array( (int) 0 => '785422', (int) 1 => 'mrs-saraswathi-vs-v-balakrishnan' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/785422/mrs-saraswathi-vs-v-balakrishnan' $ctype = ' High Court'include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]-Code Contextecho "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Mrs Saraswathi Vs V Balakrishnan - Citation 785422 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '785422', 'acts' => 'Negiotable Instrument Act, 1881 -- Sections 138; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> -- Sections 91', 'appealno' => 'Crl. R.C. No. 384 of 1997 and Crl. M.P. No. 2241 of 1997', 'appellant' => 'Mrs. Saraswathi', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Mrs. Saraswathi Vs. V. Balakrishnan', 'casenote' => ' - ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' Mr. D. Veerasekaran, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Mr. K.S. Padmanabhan, Adv.', 'court' => 'Chennai', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1999-01-25', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'M. Karpagavinayagam, J.', 'judgement' => 'Acts/Rules/Orders:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Negiotable Instrument Act, 1881 -- Section 138;Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -- Section 91</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Judgment Pronounced by M. Karpagavinayagam, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This revision is directed against the order dismissing the application filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 91 Cr.P.C. to call for certain documents from the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Crime General, Egmore, registered in No. 1873/ACC(G) Camp/ 2.8.1995. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The complainant, the respondent herein filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the year 1995. Before the trial commenced, the petitioner filed an application on 5.11.1996 stating that the petitioner never borrowed any money from the complainant, that one Indira took away the cheque from the accused and the said Indira misused the same without the knowledge of the accused and that therefore, she filed a complaint to the police on 2.8.1995 and that during the said enquiry by the police, some of the persons were summoned and they were examined and that those documents are essential documents to disprove the case of the complainant and so, those documents have to be summoned. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. This application was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the request of the accused to summon the documents is even before the commencement of the prosecution evidence and that despite the alleged complaint at 2.8.1995, there is no effort taken by the petitioner/accused to stop the payment of the cheque through intimation to the Bank immediately after the alleged theft. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. While attacking the impugned order, Mr. Veerasekaran, the counsel for the petitioner, would submit that with reference 'to the same cheque the petitioner has given a complaint against one Indira on 2.8.1995 itself regarding the theft of the said cheque and some statements were recorded in the said case and if those documents are produced before the Court, it would enable the accused to disprove the complainant's case. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Heard the counsel for both. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. I am not inclined to agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Section 91 Cr.P.C. confers powers on the Court to order for production of any document, if it is necessary or desirable for the purpose of trial. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In this case, the defence of the petitioner is that the cheque in question was stolen by one Indira and regarding this a complaint was filed on 2.8.1995. Admittedly, there is no allegation in the said complaint that the respondent committed theft of the cheque in question. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. According to the complaint, the cheque issued by the petitioner in favour of the respondent was presented in the Bank on 4.10.1995 and the same was dishonoured. Thereafter, the complainant sent a statutory notice on 13.10.1995. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. As pointed out by the learned Magistrate, the complaint has been lodged with regard to the stolen cheque on 2.8.1995 itself, but even then there was no intimation by the accused to the Bank to stop the payment of the cheque, as it had been stolen. Moreover, the notice was issued by the complainant on 13.10.1995 which was received by the petitioner on 14.10.1995. There was no reply for this notice. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Under these circumstances, it is not understandable as to why documents relating to the theft complaint given against one Indira would be relevant to the issue to be decided in this case. When the Court feels that the documents sought to be summoned are unnecessary, the Court is entitled to reject the request of the petitioner. Therefore, in my view, there is no infirmity in the impugned order and as such, the revision is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Consequently, Crl.M.P. No. 2241 of 1997 is also dismissed. The trial Court is directed to go on with the trial as expeditiously as possible. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1999(2)CTC298', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'V. Balakrishnan', 'sub' => 'Banking;Criminal ', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'mrs-saraswathi-vs-v-balakrishnan', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '785422', (int) 1 => 'mrs-saraswathi-vs-v-balakrishnan' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Mrs Saraswathi Vs V Balakrishnan - Citation 785422 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '785422', 'acts' => 'Negiotable Instrument Act, 1881 -- Sections 138; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> -- Sections 91', 'appealno' => 'Crl. R.C. No. 384 of 1997 and Crl. M.P. No. 2241 of 1997', 'appellant' => 'Mrs. Saraswathi', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Mrs. Saraswathi Vs. V. Balakrishnan', 'casenote' => ' - ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' Mr. D. Veerasekaran, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Mr. K.S. Padmanabhan, Adv.', 'court' => 'Chennai', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1999-01-25', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'M. Karpagavinayagam, J.', 'judgement' => 'Acts/Rules/Orders:</p><p>Negiotable Instrument Act, 1881 -- Section 138;Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -- Section 91</p><p>Judgment Pronounced by M. Karpagavinayagam, J.</p><p>1. This revision is directed against the order dismissing the application filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 91 Cr.P.C. to call for certain documents from the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Crime General, Egmore, registered in No. 1873/ACC(G) Camp/ 2.8.1995. </p><p>2. The complainant, the respondent herein filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the year 1995. Before the trial commenced, the petitioner filed an application on 5.11.1996 stating that the petitioner never borrowed any money from the complainant, that one Indira took away the cheque from the accused and the said Indira misused the same without the knowledge of the accused and that therefore, she filed a complaint to the police on 2.8.1995 and that during the said enquiry by the police, some of the persons were summoned and they were examined and that those documents are essential documents to disprove the case of the complainant and so, those documents have to be summoned. </p><p>3. This application was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the request of the accused to summon the documents is even before the commencement of the prosecution evidence and that despite the alleged complaint at 2.8.1995, there is no effort taken by the petitioner/accused to stop the payment of the cheque through intimation to the Bank immediately after the alleged theft. </p><p>4. While attacking the impugned order, Mr. Veerasekaran, the counsel for the petitioner, would submit that with reference 'to the same cheque the petitioner has given a complaint against one Indira on 2.8.1995 itself regarding the theft of the said cheque and some statements were recorded in the said case and if those documents are produced before the Court, it would enable the accused to disprove the complainant's case. </p><p>5. Heard the counsel for both. </p><p>6. I am not inclined to agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Section 91 Cr.P.C. confers powers on the Court to order for production of any document, if it is necessary or desirable for the purpose of trial. </p><p>7. In this case, the defence of the petitioner is that the cheque in question was stolen by one Indira and regarding this a complaint was filed on 2.8.1995. Admittedly, there is no allegation in the said complaint that the respondent committed theft of the cheque in question. </p><p>8. According to the complaint, the cheque issued by the petitioner in favour of the respondent was presented in the Bank on 4.10.1995 and the same was dishonoured. Thereafter, the complainant sent a statutory notice on 13.10.1995. </p><p>9. As pointed out by the learned Magistrate, the complaint has been lodged with regard to the stolen cheque on 2.8.1995 itself, but even then there was no intimation by the accused to the Bank to stop the payment of the cheque, as it had been stolen. Moreover, the notice was issued by the complainant on 13.10.1995 which was received by the petitioner on 14.10.1995. There was no reply for this notice. </p><p>10. Under these circumstances, it is not understandable as to why documents relating to the theft complaint given against one Indira would be relevant to the issue to be decided in this case. When the Court feels that the documents sought to be summoned are unnecessary, the Court is entitled to reject the request of the petitioner. Therefore, in my view, there is no infirmity in the impugned order and as such, the revision is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Consequently, Crl.M.P. No. 2241 of 1997 is also dismissed. The trial Court is directed to go on with the trial as expeditiously as possible. <p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1999(2)CTC298', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'V. Balakrishnan', 'sub' => 'Banking;Criminal ', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'mrs-saraswathi-vs-v-balakrishnan' $args = array( (int) 0 => '785422', (int) 1 => 'mrs-saraswathi-vs-v-balakrishnan' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/785422/mrs-saraswathi-vs-v-balakrishnan' $ctype = ' High Court'include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]Code Context}//highest occurence of word in the judgementecho $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Mrs Saraswathi Vs V Balakrishnan - Citation 785422 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '785422', 'acts' => 'Negiotable Instrument Act, 1881 -- Sections 138; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> -- Sections 91', 'appealno' => 'Crl. R.C. No. 384 of 1997 and Crl. M.P. No. 2241 of 1997', 'appellant' => 'Mrs. Saraswathi', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Mrs. Saraswathi Vs. V. Balakrishnan', 'casenote' => ' - ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' Mr. D. Veerasekaran, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Mr. K.S. Padmanabhan, Adv.', 'court' => 'Chennai', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1999-01-25', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'M. Karpagavinayagam, J.', 'judgement' => 'Acts/Rules/Orders:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Negiotable Instrument Act, 1881 -- Section 138;Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -- Section 91</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Judgment Pronounced by M. Karpagavinayagam, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This revision is directed against the order dismissing the application filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 91 Cr.P.C. to call for certain documents from the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Crime General, Egmore, registered in No. 1873/ACC(G) Camp/ 2.8.1995. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The complainant, the respondent herein filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the year 1995. Before the trial commenced, the petitioner filed an application on 5.11.1996 stating that the petitioner never borrowed any money from the complainant, that one Indira took away the cheque from the accused and the said Indira misused the same without the knowledge of the accused and that therefore, she filed a complaint to the police on 2.8.1995 and that during the said enquiry by the police, some of the persons were summoned and they were examined and that those documents are essential documents to disprove the case of the complainant and so, those documents have to be summoned. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. This application was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the request of the accused to summon the documents is even before the commencement of the prosecution evidence and that despite the alleged complaint at 2.8.1995, there is no effort taken by the petitioner/accused to stop the payment of the cheque through intimation to the Bank immediately after the alleged theft. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. While attacking the impugned order, Mr. Veerasekaran, the counsel for the petitioner, would submit that with reference 'to the same cheque the petitioner has given a complaint against one Indira on 2.8.1995 itself regarding the theft of the said cheque and some statements were recorded in the said case and if those documents are produced before the Court, it would enable the accused to disprove the complainant's case. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Heard the counsel for both. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. I am not inclined to agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Section 91 Cr.P.C. confers powers on the Court to order for production of any document, if it is necessary or desirable for the purpose of trial. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In this case, the defence of the petitioner is that the cheque in question was stolen by one Indira and regarding this a complaint was filed on 2.8.1995. Admittedly, there is no allegation in the said complaint that the respondent committed theft of the cheque in question. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. According to the complaint, the cheque issued by the petitioner in favour of the respondent was presented in the Bank on 4.10.1995 and the same was dishonoured. Thereafter, the complainant sent a statutory notice on 13.10.1995. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. As pointed out by the learned Magistrate, the complaint has been lodged with regard to the stolen cheque on 2.8.1995 itself, but even then there was no intimation by the accused to the Bank to stop the payment of the cheque, as it had been stolen. Moreover, the notice was issued by the complainant on 13.10.1995 which was received by the petitioner on 14.10.1995. There was no reply for this notice. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Under these circumstances, it is not understandable as to why documents relating to the theft complaint given against one Indira would be relevant to the issue to be decided in this case. When the Court feels that the documents sought to be summoned are unnecessary, the Court is entitled to reject the request of the petitioner. Therefore, in my view, there is no infirmity in the impugned order and as such, the revision is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Consequently, Crl.M.P. No. 2241 of 1997 is also dismissed. The trial Court is directed to go on with the trial as expeditiously as possible. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1999(2)CTC298', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'V. Balakrishnan', 'sub' => 'Banking;Criminal ', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'mrs-saraswathi-vs-v-balakrishnan', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '785422', (int) 1 => 'mrs-saraswathi-vs-v-balakrishnan' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Mrs Saraswathi Vs V Balakrishnan - Citation 785422 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '785422', 'acts' => 'Negiotable Instrument Act, 1881 -- Sections 138; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> -- Sections 91', 'appealno' => 'Crl. R.C. No. 384 of 1997 and Crl. M.P. No. 2241 of 1997', 'appellant' => 'Mrs. Saraswathi', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Mrs. Saraswathi Vs. V. Balakrishnan', 'casenote' => ' - ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' Mr. D. Veerasekaran, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Mr. K.S. Padmanabhan, Adv.', 'court' => 'Chennai', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1999-01-25', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'M. Karpagavinayagam, J.', 'judgement' => 'Acts/Rules/Orders:</p><p>Negiotable Instrument Act, 1881 -- Section 138;Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -- Section 91</p><p>Judgment Pronounced by M. Karpagavinayagam, J.</p><p>1. This revision is directed against the order dismissing the application filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 91 Cr.P.C. to call for certain documents from the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Crime General, Egmore, registered in No. 1873/ACC(G) Camp/ 2.8.1995. </p><p>2. The complainant, the respondent herein filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the year 1995. Before the trial commenced, the petitioner filed an application on 5.11.1996 stating that the petitioner never borrowed any money from the complainant, that one Indira took away the cheque from the accused and the said Indira misused the same without the knowledge of the accused and that therefore, she filed a complaint to the police on 2.8.1995 and that during the said enquiry by the police, some of the persons were summoned and they were examined and that those documents are essential documents to disprove the case of the complainant and so, those documents have to be summoned. </p><p>3. This application was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the request of the accused to summon the documents is even before the commencement of the prosecution evidence and that despite the alleged complaint at 2.8.1995, there is no effort taken by the petitioner/accused to stop the payment of the cheque through intimation to the Bank immediately after the alleged theft. </p><p>4. While attacking the impugned order, Mr. Veerasekaran, the counsel for the petitioner, would submit that with reference 'to the same cheque the petitioner has given a complaint against one Indira on 2.8.1995 itself regarding the theft of the said cheque and some statements were recorded in the said case and if those documents are produced before the Court, it would enable the accused to disprove the complainant's case. </p><p>5. Heard the counsel for both. </p><p>6. I am not inclined to agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Section 91 Cr.P.C. confers powers on the Court to order for production of any document, if it is necessary or desirable for the purpose of trial. </p><p>7. In this case, the defence of the petitioner is that the cheque in question was stolen by one Indira and regarding this a complaint was filed on 2.8.1995. Admittedly, there is no allegation in the said complaint that the respondent committed theft of the cheque in question. </p><p>8. According to the complaint, the cheque issued by the petitioner in favour of the respondent was presented in the Bank on 4.10.1995 and the same was dishonoured. Thereafter, the complainant sent a statutory notice on 13.10.1995. </p><p>9. As pointed out by the learned Magistrate, the complaint has been lodged with regard to the stolen cheque on 2.8.1995 itself, but even then there was no intimation by the accused to the Bank to stop the payment of the cheque, as it had been stolen. Moreover, the notice was issued by the complainant on 13.10.1995 which was received by the petitioner on 14.10.1995. There was no reply for this notice. </p><p>10. Under these circumstances, it is not understandable as to why documents relating to the theft complaint given against one Indira would be relevant to the issue to be decided in this case. When the Court feels that the documents sought to be summoned are unnecessary, the Court is entitled to reject the request of the petitioner. Therefore, in my view, there is no infirmity in the impugned order and as such, the revision is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Consequently, Crl.M.P. No. 2241 of 1997 is also dismissed. The trial Court is directed to go on with the trial as expeditiously as possible. <p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1999(2)CTC298', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'V. Balakrishnan', 'sub' => 'Banking;Criminal ', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'mrs-saraswathi-vs-v-balakrishnan' $args = array( (int) 0 => '785422', (int) 1 => 'mrs-saraswathi-vs-v-balakrishnan' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/785422/mrs-saraswathi-vs-v-balakrishnan' $ctype = ' High Court'include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]acts/rules/orders:negiotable instrument act, 1881 -- section 138;code of criminal procedure, 1973 -- section 91judgment pronounced by m. karpagavinayagam, j.1. this revision is directed against the order dismissing the application filed by the petitioner/accused under section 91 cr.p.c. to call for certain documents from the assistant commissioner of police, crime general, egmore, registered in no. 1873/acc(g) camp/ 2.8.1995. 2. the complainant, the respondent herein filed a complaint against the petitioner under section 138 of the negotiable instruments act in the year 1995. before the trial commenced, the petitioner filed an application on 5.11.1996 stating that the petitioner never borrowed any money from the complainant, that one indira took away the cheque from the accused and the.....Code Context}//highest occurence of word in the judgementecho $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Mrs Saraswathi Vs V Balakrishnan - Citation 785422 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '785422', 'acts' => 'Negiotable Instrument Act, 1881 -- Sections 138; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> -- Sections 91', 'appealno' => 'Crl. R.C. No. 384 of 1997 and Crl. M.P. No. 2241 of 1997', 'appellant' => 'Mrs. Saraswathi', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Mrs. Saraswathi Vs. V. Balakrishnan', 'casenote' => ' - ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' Mr. D. Veerasekaran, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Mr. K.S. Padmanabhan, Adv.', 'court' => 'Chennai', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1999-01-25', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'M. Karpagavinayagam, J.', 'judgement' => 'Acts/Rules/Orders:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Negiotable Instrument Act, 1881 -- Section 138;Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -- Section 91</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Judgment Pronounced by M. Karpagavinayagam, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This revision is directed against the order dismissing the application filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 91 Cr.P.C. to call for certain documents from the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Crime General, Egmore, registered in No. 1873/ACC(G) Camp/ 2.8.1995. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The complainant, the respondent herein filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the year 1995. Before the trial commenced, the petitioner filed an application on 5.11.1996 stating that the petitioner never borrowed any money from the complainant, that one Indira took away the cheque from the accused and the said Indira misused the same without the knowledge of the accused and that therefore, she filed a complaint to the police on 2.8.1995 and that during the said enquiry by the police, some of the persons were summoned and they were examined and that those documents are essential documents to disprove the case of the complainant and so, those documents have to be summoned. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. This application was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the request of the accused to summon the documents is even before the commencement of the prosecution evidence and that despite the alleged complaint at 2.8.1995, there is no effort taken by the petitioner/accused to stop the payment of the cheque through intimation to the Bank immediately after the alleged theft. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. While attacking the impugned order, Mr. Veerasekaran, the counsel for the petitioner, would submit that with reference 'to the same cheque the petitioner has given a complaint against one Indira on 2.8.1995 itself regarding the theft of the said cheque and some statements were recorded in the said case and if those documents are produced before the Court, it would enable the accused to disprove the complainant's case. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Heard the counsel for both. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. I am not inclined to agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Section 91 Cr.P.C. confers powers on the Court to order for production of any document, if it is necessary or desirable for the purpose of trial. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In this case, the defence of the petitioner is that the cheque in question was stolen by one Indira and regarding this a complaint was filed on 2.8.1995. Admittedly, there is no allegation in the said complaint that the respondent committed theft of the cheque in question. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. According to the complaint, the cheque issued by the petitioner in favour of the respondent was presented in the Bank on 4.10.1995 and the same was dishonoured. Thereafter, the complainant sent a statutory notice on 13.10.1995. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. As pointed out by the learned Magistrate, the complaint has been lodged with regard to the stolen cheque on 2.8.1995 itself, but even then there was no intimation by the accused to the Bank to stop the payment of the cheque, as it had been stolen. Moreover, the notice was issued by the complainant on 13.10.1995 which was received by the petitioner on 14.10.1995. There was no reply for this notice. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Under these circumstances, it is not understandable as to why documents relating to the theft complaint given against one Indira would be relevant to the issue to be decided in this case. When the Court feels that the documents sought to be summoned are unnecessary, the Court is entitled to reject the request of the petitioner. Therefore, in my view, there is no infirmity in the impugned order and as such, the revision is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Consequently, Crl.M.P. No. 2241 of 1997 is also dismissed. The trial Court is directed to go on with the trial as expeditiously as possible. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1999(2)CTC298', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'V. Balakrishnan', 'sub' => 'Banking;Criminal ', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'mrs-saraswathi-vs-v-balakrishnan', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '785422', (int) 1 => 'mrs-saraswathi-vs-v-balakrishnan' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Mrs Saraswathi Vs V Balakrishnan - Citation 785422 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '785422', 'acts' => 'Negiotable Instrument Act, 1881 -- Sections 138; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> -- Sections 91', 'appealno' => 'Crl. R.C. No. 384 of 1997 and Crl. M.P. No. 2241 of 1997', 'appellant' => 'Mrs. Saraswathi', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Mrs. Saraswathi Vs. V. Balakrishnan', 'casenote' => ' - ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' Mr. D. Veerasekaran, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Mr. K.S. Padmanabhan, Adv.', 'court' => 'Chennai', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1999-01-25', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'M. Karpagavinayagam, J.', 'judgement' => 'Acts/Rules/Orders:</p><p>Negiotable Instrument Act, 1881 -- Section 138;Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -- Section 91</p><p>Judgment Pronounced by M. Karpagavinayagam, J.</p><p>1. This revision is directed against the order dismissing the application filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 91 Cr.P.C. to call for certain documents from the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Crime General, Egmore, registered in No. 1873/ACC(G) Camp/ 2.8.1995. </p><p>2. The complainant, the respondent herein filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the year 1995. Before the trial commenced, the petitioner filed an application on 5.11.1996 stating that the petitioner never borrowed any money from the complainant, that one Indira took away the cheque from the accused and the said Indira misused the same without the knowledge of the accused and that therefore, she filed a complaint to the police on 2.8.1995 and that during the said enquiry by the police, some of the persons were summoned and they were examined and that those documents are essential documents to disprove the case of the complainant and so, those documents have to be summoned. </p><p>3. This application was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the request of the accused to summon the documents is even before the commencement of the prosecution evidence and that despite the alleged complaint at 2.8.1995, there is no effort taken by the petitioner/accused to stop the payment of the cheque through intimation to the Bank immediately after the alleged theft. </p><p>4. While attacking the impugned order, Mr. Veerasekaran, the counsel for the petitioner, would submit that with reference 'to the same cheque the petitioner has given a complaint against one Indira on 2.8.1995 itself regarding the theft of the said cheque and some statements were recorded in the said case and if those documents are produced before the Court, it would enable the accused to disprove the complainant's case. </p><p>5. Heard the counsel for both. </p><p>6. I am not inclined to agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Section 91 Cr.P.C. confers powers on the Court to order for production of any document, if it is necessary or desirable for the purpose of trial. </p><p>7. In this case, the defence of the petitioner is that the cheque in question was stolen by one Indira and regarding this a complaint was filed on 2.8.1995. Admittedly, there is no allegation in the said complaint that the respondent committed theft of the cheque in question. </p><p>8. According to the complaint, the cheque issued by the petitioner in favour of the respondent was presented in the Bank on 4.10.1995 and the same was dishonoured. Thereafter, the complainant sent a statutory notice on 13.10.1995. </p><p>9. As pointed out by the learned Magistrate, the complaint has been lodged with regard to the stolen cheque on 2.8.1995 itself, but even then there was no intimation by the accused to the Bank to stop the payment of the cheque, as it had been stolen. Moreover, the notice was issued by the complainant on 13.10.1995 which was received by the petitioner on 14.10.1995. There was no reply for this notice. </p><p>10. Under these circumstances, it is not understandable as to why documents relating to the theft complaint given against one Indira would be relevant to the issue to be decided in this case. When the Court feels that the documents sought to be summoned are unnecessary, the Court is entitled to reject the request of the petitioner. Therefore, in my view, there is no infirmity in the impugned order and as such, the revision is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Consequently, Crl.M.P. No. 2241 of 1997 is also dismissed. The trial Court is directed to go on with the trial as expeditiously as possible. <p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1999(2)CTC298', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'V. Balakrishnan', 'sub' => 'Banking;Criminal ', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'mrs-saraswathi-vs-v-balakrishnan' $args = array( (int) 0 => '785422', (int) 1 => 'mrs-saraswathi-vs-v-balakrishnan' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/785422/mrs-saraswathi-vs-v-balakrishnan' $ctype = ' High Court'include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Acts/Rules/Orders:Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Mrs Saraswathi Vs V Balakrishnan - Citation 785422 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '785422', 'acts' => 'Negiotable Instrument Act, 1881 -- Sections 138; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> -- Sections 91', 'appealno' => 'Crl. R.C. No. 384 of 1997 and Crl. M.P. No. 2241 of 1997', 'appellant' => 'Mrs. Saraswathi', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Mrs. Saraswathi Vs. V. Balakrishnan', 'casenote' => ' - ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' Mr. D. Veerasekaran, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Mr. K.S. Padmanabhan, Adv.', 'court' => 'Chennai', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1999-01-25', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'M. Karpagavinayagam, J.', 'judgement' => 'Acts/Rules/Orders:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Negiotable Instrument Act, 1881 -- Section 138;Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -- Section 91</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Judgment Pronounced by M. Karpagavinayagam, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This revision is directed against the order dismissing the application filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 91 Cr.P.C. to call for certain documents from the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Crime General, Egmore, registered in No. 1873/ACC(G) Camp/ 2.8.1995. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The complainant, the respondent herein filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the year 1995. Before the trial commenced, the petitioner filed an application on 5.11.1996 stating that the petitioner never borrowed any money from the complainant, that one Indira took away the cheque from the accused and the said Indira misused the same without the knowledge of the accused and that therefore, she filed a complaint to the police on 2.8.1995 and that during the said enquiry by the police, some of the persons were summoned and they were examined and that those documents are essential documents to disprove the case of the complainant and so, those documents have to be summoned. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. This application was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the request of the accused to summon the documents is even before the commencement of the prosecution evidence and that despite the alleged complaint at 2.8.1995, there is no effort taken by the petitioner/accused to stop the payment of the cheque through intimation to the Bank immediately after the alleged theft. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. While attacking the impugned order, Mr. Veerasekaran, the counsel for the petitioner, would submit that with reference 'to the same cheque the petitioner has given a complaint against one Indira on 2.8.1995 itself regarding the theft of the said cheque and some statements were recorded in the said case and if those documents are produced before the Court, it would enable the accused to disprove the complainant's case. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Heard the counsel for both. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. I am not inclined to agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Section 91 Cr.P.C. confers powers on the Court to order for production of any document, if it is necessary or desirable for the purpose of trial. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In this case, the defence of the petitioner is that the cheque in question was stolen by one Indira and regarding this a complaint was filed on 2.8.1995. Admittedly, there is no allegation in the said complaint that the respondent committed theft of the cheque in question. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. According to the complaint, the cheque issued by the petitioner in favour of the respondent was presented in the Bank on 4.10.1995 and the same was dishonoured. Thereafter, the complainant sent a statutory notice on 13.10.1995. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. As pointed out by the learned Magistrate, the complaint has been lodged with regard to the stolen cheque on 2.8.1995 itself, but even then there was no intimation by the accused to the Bank to stop the payment of the cheque, as it had been stolen. Moreover, the notice was issued by the complainant on 13.10.1995 which was received by the petitioner on 14.10.1995. There was no reply for this notice. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Under these circumstances, it is not understandable as to why documents relating to the theft complaint given against one Indira would be relevant to the issue to be decided in this case. When the Court feels that the documents sought to be summoned are unnecessary, the Court is entitled to reject the request of the petitioner. Therefore, in my view, there is no infirmity in the impugned order and as such, the revision is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Consequently, Crl.M.P. No. 2241 of 1997 is also dismissed. The trial Court is directed to go on with the trial as expeditiously as possible. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1999(2)CTC298', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'V. Balakrishnan', 'sub' => 'Banking;Criminal ', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'mrs-saraswathi-vs-v-balakrishnan', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '785422', (int) 1 => 'mrs-saraswathi-vs-v-balakrishnan' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Mrs Saraswathi Vs V Balakrishnan - Citation 785422 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '785422', 'acts' => 'Negiotable Instrument Act, 1881 -- Sections 138; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> -- Sections 91', 'appealno' => 'Crl. R.C. No. 384 of 1997 and Crl. M.P. No. 2241 of 1997', 'appellant' => 'Mrs. Saraswathi', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Mrs. Saraswathi Vs. V. Balakrishnan', 'casenote' => ' - ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' Mr. D. Veerasekaran, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Mr. K.S. Padmanabhan, Adv.', 'court' => 'Chennai', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1999-01-25', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'M. Karpagavinayagam, J.', 'judgement' => 'Acts/Rules/Orders:</p><p>Negiotable Instrument Act, 1881 -- Section 138;Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -- Section 91</p><p>Judgment Pronounced by M. Karpagavinayagam, J.</p><p>1. This revision is directed against the order dismissing the application filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 91 Cr.P.C. to call for certain documents from the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Crime General, Egmore, registered in No. 1873/ACC(G) Camp/ 2.8.1995. </p><p>2. The complainant, the respondent herein filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the year 1995. Before the trial commenced, the petitioner filed an application on 5.11.1996 stating that the petitioner never borrowed any money from the complainant, that one Indira took away the cheque from the accused and the said Indira misused the same without the knowledge of the accused and that therefore, she filed a complaint to the police on 2.8.1995 and that during the said enquiry by the police, some of the persons were summoned and they were examined and that those documents are essential documents to disprove the case of the complainant and so, those documents have to be summoned. </p><p>3. This application was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the request of the accused to summon the documents is even before the commencement of the prosecution evidence and that despite the alleged complaint at 2.8.1995, there is no effort taken by the petitioner/accused to stop the payment of the cheque through intimation to the Bank immediately after the alleged theft. </p><p>4. While attacking the impugned order, Mr. Veerasekaran, the counsel for the petitioner, would submit that with reference 'to the same cheque the petitioner has given a complaint against one Indira on 2.8.1995 itself regarding the theft of the said cheque and some statements were recorded in the said case and if those documents are produced before the Court, it would enable the accused to disprove the complainant's case. </p><p>5. Heard the counsel for both. </p><p>6. I am not inclined to agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Section 91 Cr.P.C. confers powers on the Court to order for production of any document, if it is necessary or desirable for the purpose of trial. </p><p>7. In this case, the defence of the petitioner is that the cheque in question was stolen by one Indira and regarding this a complaint was filed on 2.8.1995. Admittedly, there is no allegation in the said complaint that the respondent committed theft of the cheque in question. </p><p>8. According to the complaint, the cheque issued by the petitioner in favour of the respondent was presented in the Bank on 4.10.1995 and the same was dishonoured. Thereafter, the complainant sent a statutory notice on 13.10.1995. </p><p>9. As pointed out by the learned Magistrate, the complaint has been lodged with regard to the stolen cheque on 2.8.1995 itself, but even then there was no intimation by the accused to the Bank to stop the payment of the cheque, as it had been stolen. Moreover, the notice was issued by the complainant on 13.10.1995 which was received by the petitioner on 14.10.1995. There was no reply for this notice. </p><p>10. Under these circumstances, it is not understandable as to why documents relating to the theft complaint given against one Indira would be relevant to the issue to be decided in this case. When the Court feels that the documents sought to be summoned are unnecessary, the Court is entitled to reject the request of the petitioner. Therefore, in my view, there is no infirmity in the impugned order and as such, the revision is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Consequently, Crl.M.P. No. 2241 of 1997 is also dismissed. The trial Court is directed to go on with the trial as expeditiously as possible. <p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1999(2)CTC298', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'V. Balakrishnan', 'sub' => 'Banking;Criminal ', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'mrs-saraswathi-vs-v-balakrishnan' $args = array( (int) 0 => '785422', (int) 1 => 'mrs-saraswathi-vs-v-balakrishnan' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/785422/mrs-saraswathi-vs-v-balakrishnan' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => 'Acts/Rules/Orders:', (int) 1 => '<p>Negiotable Instrument Act, 1881 -- Section 138;Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -- Section 91', (int) 2 => '<p>Judgment Pronounced by M. Karpagavinayagam, J.', (int) 3 => '<p>1. This revision is directed against the order dismissing the application filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 91 Cr.P.C. to call for certain documents from the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Crime General, Egmore, registered in No. 1873/ACC(G) Camp/ 2.8.1995. ', (int) 4 => '<p>2. The complainant, the respondent herein filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the year 1995. Before the trial commenced, the petitioner filed an application on 5.11.1996 stating that the petitioner never borrowed any money from the complainant, that one Indira took away the cheque from the accused and the said Indira misused the same without the knowledge of the accused and that therefore, she filed a complaint to the police on 2.8.1995 and that during the said enquiry by the police, some of the persons were summoned and they were examined and that those documents are essential documents to disprove the case of the complainant and so, those documents have to be summoned. ', (int) 5 => '<p>3. This application was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the request of the accused to summon the documents is even before the commencement of the prosecution evidence and that despite the alleged complaint at 2.8.1995, there is no effort taken by the petitioner/accused to stop the payment of the cheque through intimation to the Bank immediately after the alleged theft. ', (int) 6 => '<p>4. While attacking the impugned order, Mr. Veerasekaran, the counsel for the petitioner, would submit that with reference 'to the same cheque the petitioner has given a complaint against one Indira on 2.8.1995 itself regarding the theft of the said cheque and some statements were recorded in the said case and if those documents are produced before the Court, it would enable the accused to disprove the complainant's case. ', (int) 7 => '<p>5. Heard the counsel for both. ', (int) 8 => '<p>6. I am not inclined to agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Section 91 Cr.P.C. confers powers on the Court to order for production of any document, if it is necessary or desirable for the purpose of trial. ', (int) 9 => '<p>7. In this case, the defence of the petitioner is that the cheque in question was stolen by one Indira and regarding this a complaint was filed on 2.8.1995. Admittedly, there is no allegation in the said complaint that the respondent committed theft of the cheque in question. ', (int) 10 => '<p>8. According to the complaint, the cheque issued by the petitioner in favour of the respondent was presented in the Bank on 4.10.1995 and the same was dishonoured. Thereafter, the complainant sent a statutory notice on 13.10.1995. ', (int) 11 => '<p>9. As pointed out by the learned Magistrate, the complaint has been lodged with regard to the stolen cheque on 2.8.1995 itself, but even then there was no intimation by the accused to the Bank to stop the payment of the cheque, as it had been stolen. Moreover, the notice was issued by the complainant on 13.10.1995 which was received by the petitioner on 14.10.1995. There was no reply for this notice. ', (int) 12 => '<p>10. Under these circumstances, it is not understandable as to why documents relating to the theft complaint given against one Indira would be relevant to the issue to be decided in this case. When the Court feels that the documents sought to be summoned are unnecessary, the Court is entitled to reject the request of the petitioner. Therefore, in my view, there is no infirmity in the impugned order and as such, the revision is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Consequently, Crl.M.P. No. 2241 of 1997 is also dismissed. The trial Court is directed to go on with the trial as expeditiously as possible. <p>', (int) 13 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 14 $i = (int) 0include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Mrs Saraswathi Vs V Balakrishnan - Citation 785422 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '785422', 'acts' => 'Negiotable Instrument Act, 1881 -- Sections 138; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> -- Sections 91', 'appealno' => 'Crl. R.C. No. 384 of 1997 and Crl. M.P. No. 2241 of 1997', 'appellant' => 'Mrs. Saraswathi', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Mrs. Saraswathi Vs. V. Balakrishnan', 'casenote' => ' - ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' Mr. D. Veerasekaran, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Mr. K.S. Padmanabhan, Adv.', 'court' => 'Chennai', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1999-01-25', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'M. Karpagavinayagam, J.', 'judgement' => 'Acts/Rules/Orders:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Negiotable Instrument Act, 1881 -- Section 138;Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -- Section 91</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Judgment Pronounced by M. Karpagavinayagam, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This revision is directed against the order dismissing the application filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 91 Cr.P.C. to call for certain documents from the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Crime General, Egmore, registered in No. 1873/ACC(G) Camp/ 2.8.1995. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The complainant, the respondent herein filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the year 1995. Before the trial commenced, the petitioner filed an application on 5.11.1996 stating that the petitioner never borrowed any money from the complainant, that one Indira took away the cheque from the accused and the said Indira misused the same without the knowledge of the accused and that therefore, she filed a complaint to the police on 2.8.1995 and that during the said enquiry by the police, some of the persons were summoned and they were examined and that those documents are essential documents to disprove the case of the complainant and so, those documents have to be summoned. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. This application was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the request of the accused to summon the documents is even before the commencement of the prosecution evidence and that despite the alleged complaint at 2.8.1995, there is no effort taken by the petitioner/accused to stop the payment of the cheque through intimation to the Bank immediately after the alleged theft. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. While attacking the impugned order, Mr. Veerasekaran, the counsel for the petitioner, would submit that with reference 'to the same cheque the petitioner has given a complaint against one Indira on 2.8.1995 itself regarding the theft of the said cheque and some statements were recorded in the said case and if those documents are produced before the Court, it would enable the accused to disprove the complainant's case. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Heard the counsel for both. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. I am not inclined to agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Section 91 Cr.P.C. confers powers on the Court to order for production of any document, if it is necessary or desirable for the purpose of trial. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In this case, the defence of the petitioner is that the cheque in question was stolen by one Indira and regarding this a complaint was filed on 2.8.1995. Admittedly, there is no allegation in the said complaint that the respondent committed theft of the cheque in question. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. According to the complaint, the cheque issued by the petitioner in favour of the respondent was presented in the Bank on 4.10.1995 and the same was dishonoured. Thereafter, the complainant sent a statutory notice on 13.10.1995. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. As pointed out by the learned Magistrate, the complaint has been lodged with regard to the stolen cheque on 2.8.1995 itself, but even then there was no intimation by the accused to the Bank to stop the payment of the cheque, as it had been stolen. Moreover, the notice was issued by the complainant on 13.10.1995 which was received by the petitioner on 14.10.1995. There was no reply for this notice. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Under these circumstances, it is not understandable as to why documents relating to the theft complaint given against one Indira would be relevant to the issue to be decided in this case. When the Court feels that the documents sought to be summoned are unnecessary, the Court is entitled to reject the request of the petitioner. Therefore, in my view, there is no infirmity in the impugned order and as such, the revision is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Consequently, Crl.M.P. No. 2241 of 1997 is also dismissed. The trial Court is directed to go on with the trial as expeditiously as possible. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1999(2)CTC298', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'V. Balakrishnan', 'sub' => 'Banking;Criminal ', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'mrs-saraswathi-vs-v-balakrishnan', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '785422', (int) 1 => 'mrs-saraswathi-vs-v-balakrishnan' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Mrs Saraswathi Vs V Balakrishnan - Citation 785422 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '785422', 'acts' => 'Negiotable Instrument Act, 1881 -- Sections 138; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> -- Sections 91', 'appealno' => 'Crl. R.C. No. 384 of 1997 and Crl. M.P. No. 2241 of 1997', 'appellant' => 'Mrs. Saraswathi', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Mrs. Saraswathi Vs. V. Balakrishnan', 'casenote' => ' - ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' Mr. D. Veerasekaran, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Mr. K.S. Padmanabhan, Adv.', 'court' => 'Chennai', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1999-01-25', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'M. Karpagavinayagam, J.', 'judgement' => 'Acts/Rules/Orders:</p><p>Negiotable Instrument Act, 1881 -- Section 138;Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -- Section 91</p><p>Judgment Pronounced by M. Karpagavinayagam, J.</p><p>1. This revision is directed against the order dismissing the application filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 91 Cr.P.C. to call for certain documents from the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Crime General, Egmore, registered in No. 1873/ACC(G) Camp/ 2.8.1995. </p><p>2. The complainant, the respondent herein filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the year 1995. Before the trial commenced, the petitioner filed an application on 5.11.1996 stating that the petitioner never borrowed any money from the complainant, that one Indira took away the cheque from the accused and the said Indira misused the same without the knowledge of the accused and that therefore, she filed a complaint to the police on 2.8.1995 and that during the said enquiry by the police, some of the persons were summoned and they were examined and that those documents are essential documents to disprove the case of the complainant and so, those documents have to be summoned. </p><p>3. This application was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the request of the accused to summon the documents is even before the commencement of the prosecution evidence and that despite the alleged complaint at 2.8.1995, there is no effort taken by the petitioner/accused to stop the payment of the cheque through intimation to the Bank immediately after the alleged theft. </p><p>4. While attacking the impugned order, Mr. Veerasekaran, the counsel for the petitioner, would submit that with reference 'to the same cheque the petitioner has given a complaint against one Indira on 2.8.1995 itself regarding the theft of the said cheque and some statements were recorded in the said case and if those documents are produced before the Court, it would enable the accused to disprove the complainant's case. </p><p>5. Heard the counsel for both. </p><p>6. I am not inclined to agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Section 91 Cr.P.C. confers powers on the Court to order for production of any document, if it is necessary or desirable for the purpose of trial. </p><p>7. In this case, the defence of the petitioner is that the cheque in question was stolen by one Indira and regarding this a complaint was filed on 2.8.1995. Admittedly, there is no allegation in the said complaint that the respondent committed theft of the cheque in question. </p><p>8. According to the complaint, the cheque issued by the petitioner in favour of the respondent was presented in the Bank on 4.10.1995 and the same was dishonoured. Thereafter, the complainant sent a statutory notice on 13.10.1995. </p><p>9. As pointed out by the learned Magistrate, the complaint has been lodged with regard to the stolen cheque on 2.8.1995 itself, but even then there was no intimation by the accused to the Bank to stop the payment of the cheque, as it had been stolen. Moreover, the notice was issued by the complainant on 13.10.1995 which was received by the petitioner on 14.10.1995. There was no reply for this notice. </p><p>10. Under these circumstances, it is not understandable as to why documents relating to the theft complaint given against one Indira would be relevant to the issue to be decided in this case. When the Court feels that the documents sought to be summoned are unnecessary, the Court is entitled to reject the request of the petitioner. Therefore, in my view, there is no infirmity in the impugned order and as such, the revision is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Consequently, Crl.M.P. No. 2241 of 1997 is also dismissed. The trial Court is directed to go on with the trial as expeditiously as possible. <p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1999(2)CTC298', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'V. Balakrishnan', 'sub' => 'Banking;Criminal ', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'mrs-saraswathi-vs-v-balakrishnan' $args = array( (int) 0 => '785422', (int) 1 => 'mrs-saraswathi-vs-v-balakrishnan' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/785422/mrs-saraswathi-vs-v-balakrishnan' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => 'Acts/Rules/Orders:', (int) 1 => '<p>Negiotable Instrument Act, 1881 -- Section 138;Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -- Section 91', (int) 2 => '<p>Judgment Pronounced by M. Karpagavinayagam, J.', (int) 3 => '<p>1. This revision is directed against the order dismissing the application filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 91 Cr.P.C. to call for certain documents from the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Crime General, Egmore, registered in No. 1873/ACC(G) Camp/ 2.8.1995. ', (int) 4 => '<p>2. The complainant, the respondent herein filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the year 1995. Before the trial commenced, the petitioner filed an application on 5.11.1996 stating that the petitioner never borrowed any money from the complainant, that one Indira took away the cheque from the accused and the said Indira misused the same without the knowledge of the accused and that therefore, she filed a complaint to the police on 2.8.1995 and that during the said enquiry by the police, some of the persons were summoned and they were examined and that those documents are essential documents to disprove the case of the complainant and so, those documents have to be summoned. ', (int) 5 => '<p>3. This application was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the request of the accused to summon the documents is even before the commencement of the prosecution evidence and that despite the alleged complaint at 2.8.1995, there is no effort taken by the petitioner/accused to stop the payment of the cheque through intimation to the Bank immediately after the alleged theft. ', (int) 6 => '<p>4. While attacking the impugned order, Mr. Veerasekaran, the counsel for the petitioner, would submit that with reference 'to the same cheque the petitioner has given a complaint against one Indira on 2.8.1995 itself regarding the theft of the said cheque and some statements were recorded in the said case and if those documents are produced before the Court, it would enable the accused to disprove the complainant's case. ', (int) 7 => '<p>5. Heard the counsel for both. ', (int) 8 => '<p>6. I am not inclined to agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Section 91 Cr.P.C. confers powers on the Court to order for production of any document, if it is necessary or desirable for the purpose of trial. ', (int) 9 => '<p>7. In this case, the defence of the petitioner is that the cheque in question was stolen by one Indira and regarding this a complaint was filed on 2.8.1995. Admittedly, there is no allegation in the said complaint that the respondent committed theft of the cheque in question. ', (int) 10 => '<p>8. According to the complaint, the cheque issued by the petitioner in favour of the respondent was presented in the Bank on 4.10.1995 and the same was dishonoured. Thereafter, the complainant sent a statutory notice on 13.10.1995. ', (int) 11 => '<p>9. As pointed out by the learned Magistrate, the complaint has been lodged with regard to the stolen cheque on 2.8.1995 itself, but even then there was no intimation by the accused to the Bank to stop the payment of the cheque, as it had been stolen. Moreover, the notice was issued by the complainant on 13.10.1995 which was received by the petitioner on 14.10.1995. There was no reply for this notice. ', (int) 12 => '<p>10. Under these circumstances, it is not understandable as to why documents relating to the theft complaint given against one Indira would be relevant to the issue to be decided in this case. When the Court feels that the documents sought to be summoned are unnecessary, the Court is entitled to reject the request of the petitioner. Therefore, in my view, there is no infirmity in the impugned order and as such, the revision is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Consequently, Crl.M.P. No. 2241 of 1997 is also dismissed. The trial Court is directed to go on with the trial as expeditiously as possible. <p>', (int) 13 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 14 $i = (int) 1include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Negiotable Instrument Act, 1881 -- Section 138;Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -- Section 91
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Mrs Saraswathi Vs V Balakrishnan - Citation 785422 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '785422', 'acts' => 'Negiotable Instrument Act, 1881 -- Sections 138; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> -- Sections 91', 'appealno' => 'Crl. R.C. No. 384 of 1997 and Crl. M.P. No. 2241 of 1997', 'appellant' => 'Mrs. Saraswathi', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Mrs. Saraswathi Vs. V. Balakrishnan', 'casenote' => ' - ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' Mr. D. Veerasekaran, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Mr. K.S. Padmanabhan, Adv.', 'court' => 'Chennai', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1999-01-25', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'M. Karpagavinayagam, J.', 'judgement' => 'Acts/Rules/Orders:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Negiotable Instrument Act, 1881 -- Section 138;Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -- Section 91</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Judgment Pronounced by M. Karpagavinayagam, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This revision is directed against the order dismissing the application filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 91 Cr.P.C. to call for certain documents from the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Crime General, Egmore, registered in No. 1873/ACC(G) Camp/ 2.8.1995. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The complainant, the respondent herein filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the year 1995. Before the trial commenced, the petitioner filed an application on 5.11.1996 stating that the petitioner never borrowed any money from the complainant, that one Indira took away the cheque from the accused and the said Indira misused the same without the knowledge of the accused and that therefore, she filed a complaint to the police on 2.8.1995 and that during the said enquiry by the police, some of the persons were summoned and they were examined and that those documents are essential documents to disprove the case of the complainant and so, those documents have to be summoned. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. This application was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the request of the accused to summon the documents is even before the commencement of the prosecution evidence and that despite the alleged complaint at 2.8.1995, there is no effort taken by the petitioner/accused to stop the payment of the cheque through intimation to the Bank immediately after the alleged theft. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. While attacking the impugned order, Mr. Veerasekaran, the counsel for the petitioner, would submit that with reference 'to the same cheque the petitioner has given a complaint against one Indira on 2.8.1995 itself regarding the theft of the said cheque and some statements were recorded in the said case and if those documents are produced before the Court, it would enable the accused to disprove the complainant's case. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Heard the counsel for both. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. I am not inclined to agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Section 91 Cr.P.C. confers powers on the Court to order for production of any document, if it is necessary or desirable for the purpose of trial. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In this case, the defence of the petitioner is that the cheque in question was stolen by one Indira and regarding this a complaint was filed on 2.8.1995. Admittedly, there is no allegation in the said complaint that the respondent committed theft of the cheque in question. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. According to the complaint, the cheque issued by the petitioner in favour of the respondent was presented in the Bank on 4.10.1995 and the same was dishonoured. Thereafter, the complainant sent a statutory notice on 13.10.1995. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. As pointed out by the learned Magistrate, the complaint has been lodged with regard to the stolen cheque on 2.8.1995 itself, but even then there was no intimation by the accused to the Bank to stop the payment of the cheque, as it had been stolen. Moreover, the notice was issued by the complainant on 13.10.1995 which was received by the petitioner on 14.10.1995. There was no reply for this notice. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Under these circumstances, it is not understandable as to why documents relating to the theft complaint given against one Indira would be relevant to the issue to be decided in this case. When the Court feels that the documents sought to be summoned are unnecessary, the Court is entitled to reject the request of the petitioner. Therefore, in my view, there is no infirmity in the impugned order and as such, the revision is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Consequently, Crl.M.P. No. 2241 of 1997 is also dismissed. The trial Court is directed to go on with the trial as expeditiously as possible. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1999(2)CTC298', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'V. Balakrishnan', 'sub' => 'Banking;Criminal ', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'mrs-saraswathi-vs-v-balakrishnan', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '785422', (int) 1 => 'mrs-saraswathi-vs-v-balakrishnan' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Mrs Saraswathi Vs V Balakrishnan - Citation 785422 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '785422', 'acts' => 'Negiotable Instrument Act, 1881 -- Sections 138; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> -- Sections 91', 'appealno' => 'Crl. R.C. No. 384 of 1997 and Crl. M.P. No. 2241 of 1997', 'appellant' => 'Mrs. Saraswathi', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Mrs. Saraswathi Vs. V. Balakrishnan', 'casenote' => ' - ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' Mr. D. Veerasekaran, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Mr. K.S. Padmanabhan, Adv.', 'court' => 'Chennai', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1999-01-25', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'M. Karpagavinayagam, J.', 'judgement' => 'Acts/Rules/Orders:</p><p>Negiotable Instrument Act, 1881 -- Section 138;Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -- Section 91</p><p>Judgment Pronounced by M. Karpagavinayagam, J.</p><p>1. This revision is directed against the order dismissing the application filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 91 Cr.P.C. to call for certain documents from the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Crime General, Egmore, registered in No. 1873/ACC(G) Camp/ 2.8.1995. </p><p>2. The complainant, the respondent herein filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the year 1995. Before the trial commenced, the petitioner filed an application on 5.11.1996 stating that the petitioner never borrowed any money from the complainant, that one Indira took away the cheque from the accused and the said Indira misused the same without the knowledge of the accused and that therefore, she filed a complaint to the police on 2.8.1995 and that during the said enquiry by the police, some of the persons were summoned and they were examined and that those documents are essential documents to disprove the case of the complainant and so, those documents have to be summoned. </p><p>3. This application was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the request of the accused to summon the documents is even before the commencement of the prosecution evidence and that despite the alleged complaint at 2.8.1995, there is no effort taken by the petitioner/accused to stop the payment of the cheque through intimation to the Bank immediately after the alleged theft. </p><p>4. While attacking the impugned order, Mr. Veerasekaran, the counsel for the petitioner, would submit that with reference 'to the same cheque the petitioner has given a complaint against one Indira on 2.8.1995 itself regarding the theft of the said cheque and some statements were recorded in the said case and if those documents are produced before the Court, it would enable the accused to disprove the complainant's case. </p><p>5. Heard the counsel for both. </p><p>6. I am not inclined to agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Section 91 Cr.P.C. confers powers on the Court to order for production of any document, if it is necessary or desirable for the purpose of trial. </p><p>7. In this case, the defence of the petitioner is that the cheque in question was stolen by one Indira and regarding this a complaint was filed on 2.8.1995. Admittedly, there is no allegation in the said complaint that the respondent committed theft of the cheque in question. </p><p>8. According to the complaint, the cheque issued by the petitioner in favour of the respondent was presented in the Bank on 4.10.1995 and the same was dishonoured. Thereafter, the complainant sent a statutory notice on 13.10.1995. </p><p>9. As pointed out by the learned Magistrate, the complaint has been lodged with regard to the stolen cheque on 2.8.1995 itself, but even then there was no intimation by the accused to the Bank to stop the payment of the cheque, as it had been stolen. Moreover, the notice was issued by the complainant on 13.10.1995 which was received by the petitioner on 14.10.1995. There was no reply for this notice. </p><p>10. Under these circumstances, it is not understandable as to why documents relating to the theft complaint given against one Indira would be relevant to the issue to be decided in this case. When the Court feels that the documents sought to be summoned are unnecessary, the Court is entitled to reject the request of the petitioner. Therefore, in my view, there is no infirmity in the impugned order and as such, the revision is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Consequently, Crl.M.P. No. 2241 of 1997 is also dismissed. The trial Court is directed to go on with the trial as expeditiously as possible. <p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1999(2)CTC298', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'V. Balakrishnan', 'sub' => 'Banking;Criminal ', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'mrs-saraswathi-vs-v-balakrishnan' $args = array( (int) 0 => '785422', (int) 1 => 'mrs-saraswathi-vs-v-balakrishnan' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/785422/mrs-saraswathi-vs-v-balakrishnan' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => 'Acts/Rules/Orders:', (int) 1 => '<p>Negiotable Instrument Act, 1881 -- Section 138;Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -- Section 91', (int) 2 => '<p>Judgment Pronounced by M. Karpagavinayagam, J.', (int) 3 => '<p>1. This revision is directed against the order dismissing the application filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 91 Cr.P.C. to call for certain documents from the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Crime General, Egmore, registered in No. 1873/ACC(G) Camp/ 2.8.1995. ', (int) 4 => '<p>2. The complainant, the respondent herein filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the year 1995. Before the trial commenced, the petitioner filed an application on 5.11.1996 stating that the petitioner never borrowed any money from the complainant, that one Indira took away the cheque from the accused and the said Indira misused the same without the knowledge of the accused and that therefore, she filed a complaint to the police on 2.8.1995 and that during the said enquiry by the police, some of the persons were summoned and they were examined and that those documents are essential documents to disprove the case of the complainant and so, those documents have to be summoned. ', (int) 5 => '<p>3. This application was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the request of the accused to summon the documents is even before the commencement of the prosecution evidence and that despite the alleged complaint at 2.8.1995, there is no effort taken by the petitioner/accused to stop the payment of the cheque through intimation to the Bank immediately after the alleged theft. ', (int) 6 => '<p>4. While attacking the impugned order, Mr. Veerasekaran, the counsel for the petitioner, would submit that with reference 'to the same cheque the petitioner has given a complaint against one Indira on 2.8.1995 itself regarding the theft of the said cheque and some statements were recorded in the said case and if those documents are produced before the Court, it would enable the accused to disprove the complainant's case. ', (int) 7 => '<p>5. Heard the counsel for both. ', (int) 8 => '<p>6. I am not inclined to agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Section 91 Cr.P.C. confers powers on the Court to order for production of any document, if it is necessary or desirable for the purpose of trial. ', (int) 9 => '<p>7. In this case, the defence of the petitioner is that the cheque in question was stolen by one Indira and regarding this a complaint was filed on 2.8.1995. Admittedly, there is no allegation in the said complaint that the respondent committed theft of the cheque in question. ', (int) 10 => '<p>8. According to the complaint, the cheque issued by the petitioner in favour of the respondent was presented in the Bank on 4.10.1995 and the same was dishonoured. Thereafter, the complainant sent a statutory notice on 13.10.1995. ', (int) 11 => '<p>9. As pointed out by the learned Magistrate, the complaint has been lodged with regard to the stolen cheque on 2.8.1995 itself, but even then there was no intimation by the accused to the Bank to stop the payment of the cheque, as it had been stolen. Moreover, the notice was issued by the complainant on 13.10.1995 which was received by the petitioner on 14.10.1995. There was no reply for this notice. ', (int) 12 => '<p>10. Under these circumstances, it is not understandable as to why documents relating to the theft complaint given against one Indira would be relevant to the issue to be decided in this case. When the Court feels that the documents sought to be summoned are unnecessary, the Court is entitled to reject the request of the petitioner. Therefore, in my view, there is no infirmity in the impugned order and as such, the revision is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Consequently, Crl.M.P. No. 2241 of 1997 is also dismissed. The trial Court is directed to go on with the trial as expeditiously as possible. <p>', (int) 13 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 14 $i = (int) 2include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Judgment Pronounced by M. Karpagavinayagam, J.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Mrs Saraswathi Vs V Balakrishnan - Citation 785422 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '785422', 'acts' => 'Negiotable Instrument Act, 1881 -- Sections 138; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> -- Sections 91', 'appealno' => 'Crl. R.C. No. 384 of 1997 and Crl. M.P. No. 2241 of 1997', 'appellant' => 'Mrs. Saraswathi', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Mrs. Saraswathi Vs. V. Balakrishnan', 'casenote' => ' - ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' Mr. D. Veerasekaran, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Mr. K.S. Padmanabhan, Adv.', 'court' => 'Chennai', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1999-01-25', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'M. Karpagavinayagam, J.', 'judgement' => 'Acts/Rules/Orders:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Negiotable Instrument Act, 1881 -- Section 138;Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -- Section 91</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Judgment Pronounced by M. Karpagavinayagam, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This revision is directed against the order dismissing the application filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 91 Cr.P.C. to call for certain documents from the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Crime General, Egmore, registered in No. 1873/ACC(G) Camp/ 2.8.1995. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The complainant, the respondent herein filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the year 1995. Before the trial commenced, the petitioner filed an application on 5.11.1996 stating that the petitioner never borrowed any money from the complainant, that one Indira took away the cheque from the accused and the said Indira misused the same without the knowledge of the accused and that therefore, she filed a complaint to the police on 2.8.1995 and that during the said enquiry by the police, some of the persons were summoned and they were examined and that those documents are essential documents to disprove the case of the complainant and so, those documents have to be summoned. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. This application was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the request of the accused to summon the documents is even before the commencement of the prosecution evidence and that despite the alleged complaint at 2.8.1995, there is no effort taken by the petitioner/accused to stop the payment of the cheque through intimation to the Bank immediately after the alleged theft. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. While attacking the impugned order, Mr. Veerasekaran, the counsel for the petitioner, would submit that with reference 'to the same cheque the petitioner has given a complaint against one Indira on 2.8.1995 itself regarding the theft of the said cheque and some statements were recorded in the said case and if those documents are produced before the Court, it would enable the accused to disprove the complainant's case. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Heard the counsel for both. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. I am not inclined to agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Section 91 Cr.P.C. confers powers on the Court to order for production of any document, if it is necessary or desirable for the purpose of trial. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In this case, the defence of the petitioner is that the cheque in question was stolen by one Indira and regarding this a complaint was filed on 2.8.1995. Admittedly, there is no allegation in the said complaint that the respondent committed theft of the cheque in question. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. According to the complaint, the cheque issued by the petitioner in favour of the respondent was presented in the Bank on 4.10.1995 and the same was dishonoured. Thereafter, the complainant sent a statutory notice on 13.10.1995. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. As pointed out by the learned Magistrate, the complaint has been lodged with regard to the stolen cheque on 2.8.1995 itself, but even then there was no intimation by the accused to the Bank to stop the payment of the cheque, as it had been stolen. Moreover, the notice was issued by the complainant on 13.10.1995 which was received by the petitioner on 14.10.1995. There was no reply for this notice. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Under these circumstances, it is not understandable as to why documents relating to the theft complaint given against one Indira would be relevant to the issue to be decided in this case. When the Court feels that the documents sought to be summoned are unnecessary, the Court is entitled to reject the request of the petitioner. Therefore, in my view, there is no infirmity in the impugned order and as such, the revision is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Consequently, Crl.M.P. No. 2241 of 1997 is also dismissed. The trial Court is directed to go on with the trial as expeditiously as possible. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1999(2)CTC298', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'V. Balakrishnan', 'sub' => 'Banking;Criminal ', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'mrs-saraswathi-vs-v-balakrishnan', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '785422', (int) 1 => 'mrs-saraswathi-vs-v-balakrishnan' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Mrs Saraswathi Vs V Balakrishnan - Citation 785422 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '785422', 'acts' => 'Negiotable Instrument Act, 1881 -- Sections 138; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> -- Sections 91', 'appealno' => 'Crl. R.C. No. 384 of 1997 and Crl. M.P. No. 2241 of 1997', 'appellant' => 'Mrs. Saraswathi', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Mrs. Saraswathi Vs. V. Balakrishnan', 'casenote' => ' - ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' Mr. D. Veerasekaran, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Mr. K.S. Padmanabhan, Adv.', 'court' => 'Chennai', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1999-01-25', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'M. Karpagavinayagam, J.', 'judgement' => 'Acts/Rules/Orders:</p><p>Negiotable Instrument Act, 1881 -- Section 138;Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -- Section 91</p><p>Judgment Pronounced by M. Karpagavinayagam, J.</p><p>1. This revision is directed against the order dismissing the application filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 91 Cr.P.C. to call for certain documents from the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Crime General, Egmore, registered in No. 1873/ACC(G) Camp/ 2.8.1995. </p><p>2. The complainant, the respondent herein filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the year 1995. Before the trial commenced, the petitioner filed an application on 5.11.1996 stating that the petitioner never borrowed any money from the complainant, that one Indira took away the cheque from the accused and the said Indira misused the same without the knowledge of the accused and that therefore, she filed a complaint to the police on 2.8.1995 and that during the said enquiry by the police, some of the persons were summoned and they were examined and that those documents are essential documents to disprove the case of the complainant and so, those documents have to be summoned. </p><p>3. This application was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the request of the accused to summon the documents is even before the commencement of the prosecution evidence and that despite the alleged complaint at 2.8.1995, there is no effort taken by the petitioner/accused to stop the payment of the cheque through intimation to the Bank immediately after the alleged theft. </p><p>4. While attacking the impugned order, Mr. Veerasekaran, the counsel for the petitioner, would submit that with reference 'to the same cheque the petitioner has given a complaint against one Indira on 2.8.1995 itself regarding the theft of the said cheque and some statements were recorded in the said case and if those documents are produced before the Court, it would enable the accused to disprove the complainant's case. </p><p>5. Heard the counsel for both. </p><p>6. I am not inclined to agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Section 91 Cr.P.C. confers powers on the Court to order for production of any document, if it is necessary or desirable for the purpose of trial. </p><p>7. In this case, the defence of the petitioner is that the cheque in question was stolen by one Indira and regarding this a complaint was filed on 2.8.1995. Admittedly, there is no allegation in the said complaint that the respondent committed theft of the cheque in question. </p><p>8. According to the complaint, the cheque issued by the petitioner in favour of the respondent was presented in the Bank on 4.10.1995 and the same was dishonoured. Thereafter, the complainant sent a statutory notice on 13.10.1995. </p><p>9. As pointed out by the learned Magistrate, the complaint has been lodged with regard to the stolen cheque on 2.8.1995 itself, but even then there was no intimation by the accused to the Bank to stop the payment of the cheque, as it had been stolen. Moreover, the notice was issued by the complainant on 13.10.1995 which was received by the petitioner on 14.10.1995. There was no reply for this notice. </p><p>10. Under these circumstances, it is not understandable as to why documents relating to the theft complaint given against one Indira would be relevant to the issue to be decided in this case. When the Court feels that the documents sought to be summoned are unnecessary, the Court is entitled to reject the request of the petitioner. Therefore, in my view, there is no infirmity in the impugned order and as such, the revision is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Consequently, Crl.M.P. No. 2241 of 1997 is also dismissed. The trial Court is directed to go on with the trial as expeditiously as possible. <p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1999(2)CTC298', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'V. Balakrishnan', 'sub' => 'Banking;Criminal ', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'mrs-saraswathi-vs-v-balakrishnan' $args = array( (int) 0 => '785422', (int) 1 => 'mrs-saraswathi-vs-v-balakrishnan' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/785422/mrs-saraswathi-vs-v-balakrishnan' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => 'Acts/Rules/Orders:', (int) 1 => '<p>Negiotable Instrument Act, 1881 -- Section 138;Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -- Section 91', (int) 2 => '<p>Judgment Pronounced by M. Karpagavinayagam, J.', (int) 3 => '<p>1. This revision is directed against the order dismissing the application filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 91 Cr.P.C. to call for certain documents from the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Crime General, Egmore, registered in No. 1873/ACC(G) Camp/ 2.8.1995. ', (int) 4 => '<p>2. The complainant, the respondent herein filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the year 1995. Before the trial commenced, the petitioner filed an application on 5.11.1996 stating that the petitioner never borrowed any money from the complainant, that one Indira took away the cheque from the accused and the said Indira misused the same without the knowledge of the accused and that therefore, she filed a complaint to the police on 2.8.1995 and that during the said enquiry by the police, some of the persons were summoned and they were examined and that those documents are essential documents to disprove the case of the complainant and so, those documents have to be summoned. ', (int) 5 => '<p>3. This application was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the request of the accused to summon the documents is even before the commencement of the prosecution evidence and that despite the alleged complaint at 2.8.1995, there is no effort taken by the petitioner/accused to stop the payment of the cheque through intimation to the Bank immediately after the alleged theft. ', (int) 6 => '<p>4. While attacking the impugned order, Mr. Veerasekaran, the counsel for the petitioner, would submit that with reference 'to the same cheque the petitioner has given a complaint against one Indira on 2.8.1995 itself regarding the theft of the said cheque and some statements were recorded in the said case and if those documents are produced before the Court, it would enable the accused to disprove the complainant's case. ', (int) 7 => '<p>5. Heard the counsel for both. ', (int) 8 => '<p>6. I am not inclined to agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Section 91 Cr.P.C. confers powers on the Court to order for production of any document, if it is necessary or desirable for the purpose of trial. ', (int) 9 => '<p>7. In this case, the defence of the petitioner is that the cheque in question was stolen by one Indira and regarding this a complaint was filed on 2.8.1995. Admittedly, there is no allegation in the said complaint that the respondent committed theft of the cheque in question. ', (int) 10 => '<p>8. According to the complaint, the cheque issued by the petitioner in favour of the respondent was presented in the Bank on 4.10.1995 and the same was dishonoured. Thereafter, the complainant sent a statutory notice on 13.10.1995. ', (int) 11 => '<p>9. As pointed out by the learned Magistrate, the complaint has been lodged with regard to the stolen cheque on 2.8.1995 itself, but even then there was no intimation by the accused to the Bank to stop the payment of the cheque, as it had been stolen. Moreover, the notice was issued by the complainant on 13.10.1995 which was received by the petitioner on 14.10.1995. There was no reply for this notice. ', (int) 12 => '<p>10. Under these circumstances, it is not understandable as to why documents relating to the theft complaint given against one Indira would be relevant to the issue to be decided in this case. When the Court feels that the documents sought to be summoned are unnecessary, the Court is entitled to reject the request of the petitioner. Therefore, in my view, there is no infirmity in the impugned order and as such, the revision is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Consequently, Crl.M.P. No. 2241 of 1997 is also dismissed. The trial Court is directed to go on with the trial as expeditiously as possible. <p>', (int) 13 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 14 $i = (int) 3include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
1. This revision is directed against the order dismissing the application filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 91 Cr.P.C. to call for certain documents from the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Crime General, Egmore, registered in No. 1873/ACC(G) Camp/ 2.8.1995.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Mrs Saraswathi Vs V Balakrishnan - Citation 785422 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '785422', 'acts' => 'Negiotable Instrument Act, 1881 -- Sections 138; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> -- Sections 91', 'appealno' => 'Crl. R.C. No. 384 of 1997 and Crl. M.P. No. 2241 of 1997', 'appellant' => 'Mrs. Saraswathi', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Mrs. Saraswathi Vs. V. Balakrishnan', 'casenote' => ' - ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' Mr. D. Veerasekaran, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Mr. K.S. Padmanabhan, Adv.', 'court' => 'Chennai', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1999-01-25', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'M. Karpagavinayagam, J.', 'judgement' => 'Acts/Rules/Orders:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Negiotable Instrument Act, 1881 -- Section 138;Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -- Section 91</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Judgment Pronounced by M. Karpagavinayagam, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This revision is directed against the order dismissing the application filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 91 Cr.P.C. to call for certain documents from the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Crime General, Egmore, registered in No. 1873/ACC(G) Camp/ 2.8.1995. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The complainant, the respondent herein filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the year 1995. Before the trial commenced, the petitioner filed an application on 5.11.1996 stating that the petitioner never borrowed any money from the complainant, that one Indira took away the cheque from the accused and the said Indira misused the same without the knowledge of the accused and that therefore, she filed a complaint to the police on 2.8.1995 and that during the said enquiry by the police, some of the persons were summoned and they were examined and that those documents are essential documents to disprove the case of the complainant and so, those documents have to be summoned. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. This application was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the request of the accused to summon the documents is even before the commencement of the prosecution evidence and that despite the alleged complaint at 2.8.1995, there is no effort taken by the petitioner/accused to stop the payment of the cheque through intimation to the Bank immediately after the alleged theft. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. While attacking the impugned order, Mr. Veerasekaran, the counsel for the petitioner, would submit that with reference 'to the same cheque the petitioner has given a complaint against one Indira on 2.8.1995 itself regarding the theft of the said cheque and some statements were recorded in the said case and if those documents are produced before the Court, it would enable the accused to disprove the complainant's case. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Heard the counsel for both. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. I am not inclined to agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Section 91 Cr.P.C. confers powers on the Court to order for production of any document, if it is necessary or desirable for the purpose of trial. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In this case, the defence of the petitioner is that the cheque in question was stolen by one Indira and regarding this a complaint was filed on 2.8.1995. Admittedly, there is no allegation in the said complaint that the respondent committed theft of the cheque in question. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. According to the complaint, the cheque issued by the petitioner in favour of the respondent was presented in the Bank on 4.10.1995 and the same was dishonoured. Thereafter, the complainant sent a statutory notice on 13.10.1995. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. As pointed out by the learned Magistrate, the complaint has been lodged with regard to the stolen cheque on 2.8.1995 itself, but even then there was no intimation by the accused to the Bank to stop the payment of the cheque, as it had been stolen. Moreover, the notice was issued by the complainant on 13.10.1995 which was received by the petitioner on 14.10.1995. There was no reply for this notice. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Under these circumstances, it is not understandable as to why documents relating to the theft complaint given against one Indira would be relevant to the issue to be decided in this case. When the Court feels that the documents sought to be summoned are unnecessary, the Court is entitled to reject the request of the petitioner. Therefore, in my view, there is no infirmity in the impugned order and as such, the revision is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Consequently, Crl.M.P. No. 2241 of 1997 is also dismissed. The trial Court is directed to go on with the trial as expeditiously as possible. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1999(2)CTC298', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'V. Balakrishnan', 'sub' => 'Banking;Criminal ', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'mrs-saraswathi-vs-v-balakrishnan', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '785422', (int) 1 => 'mrs-saraswathi-vs-v-balakrishnan' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Mrs Saraswathi Vs V Balakrishnan - Citation 785422 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '785422', 'acts' => 'Negiotable Instrument Act, 1881 -- Sections 138; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> -- Sections 91', 'appealno' => 'Crl. R.C. No. 384 of 1997 and Crl. M.P. No. 2241 of 1997', 'appellant' => 'Mrs. Saraswathi', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Mrs. Saraswathi Vs. V. Balakrishnan', 'casenote' => ' - ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' Mr. D. Veerasekaran, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Mr. K.S. Padmanabhan, Adv.', 'court' => 'Chennai', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1999-01-25', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'M. Karpagavinayagam, J.', 'judgement' => 'Acts/Rules/Orders:</p><p>Negiotable Instrument Act, 1881 -- Section 138;Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -- Section 91</p><p>Judgment Pronounced by M. Karpagavinayagam, J.</p><p>1. This revision is directed against the order dismissing the application filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 91 Cr.P.C. to call for certain documents from the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Crime General, Egmore, registered in No. 1873/ACC(G) Camp/ 2.8.1995. </p><p>2. The complainant, the respondent herein filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the year 1995. Before the trial commenced, the petitioner filed an application on 5.11.1996 stating that the petitioner never borrowed any money from the complainant, that one Indira took away the cheque from the accused and the said Indira misused the same without the knowledge of the accused and that therefore, she filed a complaint to the police on 2.8.1995 and that during the said enquiry by the police, some of the persons were summoned and they were examined and that those documents are essential documents to disprove the case of the complainant and so, those documents have to be summoned. </p><p>3. This application was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the request of the accused to summon the documents is even before the commencement of the prosecution evidence and that despite the alleged complaint at 2.8.1995, there is no effort taken by the petitioner/accused to stop the payment of the cheque through intimation to the Bank immediately after the alleged theft. </p><p>4. While attacking the impugned order, Mr. Veerasekaran, the counsel for the petitioner, would submit that with reference 'to the same cheque the petitioner has given a complaint against one Indira on 2.8.1995 itself regarding the theft of the said cheque and some statements were recorded in the said case and if those documents are produced before the Court, it would enable the accused to disprove the complainant's case. </p><p>5. Heard the counsel for both. </p><p>6. I am not inclined to agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Section 91 Cr.P.C. confers powers on the Court to order for production of any document, if it is necessary or desirable for the purpose of trial. </p><p>7. In this case, the defence of the petitioner is that the cheque in question was stolen by one Indira and regarding this a complaint was filed on 2.8.1995. Admittedly, there is no allegation in the said complaint that the respondent committed theft of the cheque in question. </p><p>8. According to the complaint, the cheque issued by the petitioner in favour of the respondent was presented in the Bank on 4.10.1995 and the same was dishonoured. Thereafter, the complainant sent a statutory notice on 13.10.1995. </p><p>9. As pointed out by the learned Magistrate, the complaint has been lodged with regard to the stolen cheque on 2.8.1995 itself, but even then there was no intimation by the accused to the Bank to stop the payment of the cheque, as it had been stolen. Moreover, the notice was issued by the complainant on 13.10.1995 which was received by the petitioner on 14.10.1995. There was no reply for this notice. </p><p>10. Under these circumstances, it is not understandable as to why documents relating to the theft complaint given against one Indira would be relevant to the issue to be decided in this case. When the Court feels that the documents sought to be summoned are unnecessary, the Court is entitled to reject the request of the petitioner. Therefore, in my view, there is no infirmity in the impugned order and as such, the revision is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Consequently, Crl.M.P. No. 2241 of 1997 is also dismissed. The trial Court is directed to go on with the trial as expeditiously as possible. <p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1999(2)CTC298', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'V. Balakrishnan', 'sub' => 'Banking;Criminal ', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'mrs-saraswathi-vs-v-balakrishnan' $args = array( (int) 0 => '785422', (int) 1 => 'mrs-saraswathi-vs-v-balakrishnan' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/785422/mrs-saraswathi-vs-v-balakrishnan' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => 'Acts/Rules/Orders:', (int) 1 => '<p>Negiotable Instrument Act, 1881 -- Section 138;Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -- Section 91', (int) 2 => '<p>Judgment Pronounced by M. Karpagavinayagam, J.', (int) 3 => '<p>1. This revision is directed against the order dismissing the application filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 91 Cr.P.C. to call for certain documents from the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Crime General, Egmore, registered in No. 1873/ACC(G) Camp/ 2.8.1995. ', (int) 4 => '<p>2. The complainant, the respondent herein filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the year 1995. Before the trial commenced, the petitioner filed an application on 5.11.1996 stating that the petitioner never borrowed any money from the complainant, that one Indira took away the cheque from the accused and the said Indira misused the same without the knowledge of the accused and that therefore, she filed a complaint to the police on 2.8.1995 and that during the said enquiry by the police, some of the persons were summoned and they were examined and that those documents are essential documents to disprove the case of the complainant and so, those documents have to be summoned. ', (int) 5 => '<p>3. This application was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the request of the accused to summon the documents is even before the commencement of the prosecution evidence and that despite the alleged complaint at 2.8.1995, there is no effort taken by the petitioner/accused to stop the payment of the cheque through intimation to the Bank immediately after the alleged theft. ', (int) 6 => '<p>4. While attacking the impugned order, Mr. Veerasekaran, the counsel for the petitioner, would submit that with reference 'to the same cheque the petitioner has given a complaint against one Indira on 2.8.1995 itself regarding the theft of the said cheque and some statements were recorded in the said case and if those documents are produced before the Court, it would enable the accused to disprove the complainant's case. ', (int) 7 => '<p>5. Heard the counsel for both. ', (int) 8 => '<p>6. I am not inclined to agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Section 91 Cr.P.C. confers powers on the Court to order for production of any document, if it is necessary or desirable for the purpose of trial. ', (int) 9 => '<p>7. In this case, the defence of the petitioner is that the cheque in question was stolen by one Indira and regarding this a complaint was filed on 2.8.1995. Admittedly, there is no allegation in the said complaint that the respondent committed theft of the cheque in question. ', (int) 10 => '<p>8. According to the complaint, the cheque issued by the petitioner in favour of the respondent was presented in the Bank on 4.10.1995 and the same was dishonoured. Thereafter, the complainant sent a statutory notice on 13.10.1995. ', (int) 11 => '<p>9. As pointed out by the learned Magistrate, the complaint has been lodged with regard to the stolen cheque on 2.8.1995 itself, but even then there was no intimation by the accused to the Bank to stop the payment of the cheque, as it had been stolen. Moreover, the notice was issued by the complainant on 13.10.1995 which was received by the petitioner on 14.10.1995. There was no reply for this notice. ', (int) 12 => '<p>10. Under these circumstances, it is not understandable as to why documents relating to the theft complaint given against one Indira would be relevant to the issue to be decided in this case. When the Court feels that the documents sought to be summoned are unnecessary, the Court is entitled to reject the request of the petitioner. Therefore, in my view, there is no infirmity in the impugned order and as such, the revision is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Consequently, Crl.M.P. No. 2241 of 1997 is also dismissed. The trial Court is directed to go on with the trial as expeditiously as possible. <p>', (int) 13 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 14 $i = (int) 4include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
2. The complainant, the respondent herein filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the year 1995. Before the trial commenced, the petitioner filed an application on 5.11.1996 stating that the petitioner never borrowed any money from the complainant, that one Indira took away the cheque from the accused and the said Indira misused the same without the knowledge of the accused and that therefore, she filed a complaint to the police on 2.8.1995 and that during the said enquiry by the police, some of the persons were summoned and they were examined and that those documents are essential documents to disprove the case of the complainant and so, those documents have to be summoned.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Mrs Saraswathi Vs V Balakrishnan - Citation 785422 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '785422', 'acts' => 'Negiotable Instrument Act, 1881 -- Sections 138; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> -- Sections 91', 'appealno' => 'Crl. R.C. No. 384 of 1997 and Crl. M.P. No. 2241 of 1997', 'appellant' => 'Mrs. Saraswathi', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Mrs. Saraswathi Vs. V. Balakrishnan', 'casenote' => ' - ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' Mr. D. Veerasekaran, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Mr. K.S. Padmanabhan, Adv.', 'court' => 'Chennai', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1999-01-25', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'M. Karpagavinayagam, J.', 'judgement' => 'Acts/Rules/Orders:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Negiotable Instrument Act, 1881 -- Section 138;Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -- Section 91</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Judgment Pronounced by M. Karpagavinayagam, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This revision is directed against the order dismissing the application filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 91 Cr.P.C. to call for certain documents from the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Crime General, Egmore, registered in No. 1873/ACC(G) Camp/ 2.8.1995. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The complainant, the respondent herein filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the year 1995. Before the trial commenced, the petitioner filed an application on 5.11.1996 stating that the petitioner never borrowed any money from the complainant, that one Indira took away the cheque from the accused and the said Indira misused the same without the knowledge of the accused and that therefore, she filed a complaint to the police on 2.8.1995 and that during the said enquiry by the police, some of the persons were summoned and they were examined and that those documents are essential documents to disprove the case of the complainant and so, those documents have to be summoned. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. This application was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the request of the accused to summon the documents is even before the commencement of the prosecution evidence and that despite the alleged complaint at 2.8.1995, there is no effort taken by the petitioner/accused to stop the payment of the cheque through intimation to the Bank immediately after the alleged theft. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. While attacking the impugned order, Mr. Veerasekaran, the counsel for the petitioner, would submit that with reference 'to the same cheque the petitioner has given a complaint against one Indira on 2.8.1995 itself regarding the theft of the said cheque and some statements were recorded in the said case and if those documents are produced before the Court, it would enable the accused to disprove the complainant's case. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Heard the counsel for both. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. I am not inclined to agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Section 91 Cr.P.C. confers powers on the Court to order for production of any document, if it is necessary or desirable for the purpose of trial. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In this case, the defence of the petitioner is that the cheque in question was stolen by one Indira and regarding this a complaint was filed on 2.8.1995. Admittedly, there is no allegation in the said complaint that the respondent committed theft of the cheque in question. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. According to the complaint, the cheque issued by the petitioner in favour of the respondent was presented in the Bank on 4.10.1995 and the same was dishonoured. Thereafter, the complainant sent a statutory notice on 13.10.1995. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. As pointed out by the learned Magistrate, the complaint has been lodged with regard to the stolen cheque on 2.8.1995 itself, but even then there was no intimation by the accused to the Bank to stop the payment of the cheque, as it had been stolen. Moreover, the notice was issued by the complainant on 13.10.1995 which was received by the petitioner on 14.10.1995. There was no reply for this notice. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Under these circumstances, it is not understandable as to why documents relating to the theft complaint given against one Indira would be relevant to the issue to be decided in this case. When the Court feels that the documents sought to be summoned are unnecessary, the Court is entitled to reject the request of the petitioner. Therefore, in my view, there is no infirmity in the impugned order and as such, the revision is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Consequently, Crl.M.P. No. 2241 of 1997 is also dismissed. The trial Court is directed to go on with the trial as expeditiously as possible. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1999(2)CTC298', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'V. Balakrishnan', 'sub' => 'Banking;Criminal ', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'mrs-saraswathi-vs-v-balakrishnan', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '785422', (int) 1 => 'mrs-saraswathi-vs-v-balakrishnan' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Mrs Saraswathi Vs V Balakrishnan - Citation 785422 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '785422', 'acts' => 'Negiotable Instrument Act, 1881 -- Sections 138; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> -- Sections 91', 'appealno' => 'Crl. R.C. No. 384 of 1997 and Crl. M.P. No. 2241 of 1997', 'appellant' => 'Mrs. Saraswathi', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Mrs. Saraswathi Vs. V. Balakrishnan', 'casenote' => ' - ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' Mr. D. Veerasekaran, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Mr. K.S. Padmanabhan, Adv.', 'court' => 'Chennai', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1999-01-25', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'M. Karpagavinayagam, J.', 'judgement' => 'Acts/Rules/Orders:</p><p>Negiotable Instrument Act, 1881 -- Section 138;Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -- Section 91</p><p>Judgment Pronounced by M. Karpagavinayagam, J.</p><p>1. This revision is directed against the order dismissing the application filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 91 Cr.P.C. to call for certain documents from the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Crime General, Egmore, registered in No. 1873/ACC(G) Camp/ 2.8.1995. </p><p>2. The complainant, the respondent herein filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the year 1995. Before the trial commenced, the petitioner filed an application on 5.11.1996 stating that the petitioner never borrowed any money from the complainant, that one Indira took away the cheque from the accused and the said Indira misused the same without the knowledge of the accused and that therefore, she filed a complaint to the police on 2.8.1995 and that during the said enquiry by the police, some of the persons were summoned and they were examined and that those documents are essential documents to disprove the case of the complainant and so, those documents have to be summoned. </p><p>3. This application was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the request of the accused to summon the documents is even before the commencement of the prosecution evidence and that despite the alleged complaint at 2.8.1995, there is no effort taken by the petitioner/accused to stop the payment of the cheque through intimation to the Bank immediately after the alleged theft. </p><p>4. While attacking the impugned order, Mr. Veerasekaran, the counsel for the petitioner, would submit that with reference 'to the same cheque the petitioner has given a complaint against one Indira on 2.8.1995 itself regarding the theft of the said cheque and some statements were recorded in the said case and if those documents are produced before the Court, it would enable the accused to disprove the complainant's case. </p><p>5. Heard the counsel for both. </p><p>6. I am not inclined to agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Section 91 Cr.P.C. confers powers on the Court to order for production of any document, if it is necessary or desirable for the purpose of trial. </p><p>7. In this case, the defence of the petitioner is that the cheque in question was stolen by one Indira and regarding this a complaint was filed on 2.8.1995. Admittedly, there is no allegation in the said complaint that the respondent committed theft of the cheque in question. </p><p>8. According to the complaint, the cheque issued by the petitioner in favour of the respondent was presented in the Bank on 4.10.1995 and the same was dishonoured. Thereafter, the complainant sent a statutory notice on 13.10.1995. </p><p>9. As pointed out by the learned Magistrate, the complaint has been lodged with regard to the stolen cheque on 2.8.1995 itself, but even then there was no intimation by the accused to the Bank to stop the payment of the cheque, as it had been stolen. Moreover, the notice was issued by the complainant on 13.10.1995 which was received by the petitioner on 14.10.1995. There was no reply for this notice. </p><p>10. Under these circumstances, it is not understandable as to why documents relating to the theft complaint given against one Indira would be relevant to the issue to be decided in this case. When the Court feels that the documents sought to be summoned are unnecessary, the Court is entitled to reject the request of the petitioner. Therefore, in my view, there is no infirmity in the impugned order and as such, the revision is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Consequently, Crl.M.P. No. 2241 of 1997 is also dismissed. The trial Court is directed to go on with the trial as expeditiously as possible. <p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1999(2)CTC298', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'V. Balakrishnan', 'sub' => 'Banking;Criminal ', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'mrs-saraswathi-vs-v-balakrishnan' $args = array( (int) 0 => '785422', (int) 1 => 'mrs-saraswathi-vs-v-balakrishnan' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/785422/mrs-saraswathi-vs-v-balakrishnan' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => 'Acts/Rules/Orders:', (int) 1 => '<p>Negiotable Instrument Act, 1881 -- Section 138;Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -- Section 91', (int) 2 => '<p>Judgment Pronounced by M. Karpagavinayagam, J.', (int) 3 => '<p>1. This revision is directed against the order dismissing the application filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 91 Cr.P.C. to call for certain documents from the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Crime General, Egmore, registered in No. 1873/ACC(G) Camp/ 2.8.1995. ', (int) 4 => '<p>2. The complainant, the respondent herein filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the year 1995. Before the trial commenced, the petitioner filed an application on 5.11.1996 stating that the petitioner never borrowed any money from the complainant, that one Indira took away the cheque from the accused and the said Indira misused the same without the knowledge of the accused and that therefore, she filed a complaint to the police on 2.8.1995 and that during the said enquiry by the police, some of the persons were summoned and they were examined and that those documents are essential documents to disprove the case of the complainant and so, those documents have to be summoned. ', (int) 5 => '<p>3. This application was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the request of the accused to summon the documents is even before the commencement of the prosecution evidence and that despite the alleged complaint at 2.8.1995, there is no effort taken by the petitioner/accused to stop the payment of the cheque through intimation to the Bank immediately after the alleged theft. ', (int) 6 => '<p>4. While attacking the impugned order, Mr. Veerasekaran, the counsel for the petitioner, would submit that with reference 'to the same cheque the petitioner has given a complaint against one Indira on 2.8.1995 itself regarding the theft of the said cheque and some statements were recorded in the said case and if those documents are produced before the Court, it would enable the accused to disprove the complainant's case. ', (int) 7 => '<p>5. Heard the counsel for both. ', (int) 8 => '<p>6. I am not inclined to agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Section 91 Cr.P.C. confers powers on the Court to order for production of any document, if it is necessary or desirable for the purpose of trial. ', (int) 9 => '<p>7. In this case, the defence of the petitioner is that the cheque in question was stolen by one Indira and regarding this a complaint was filed on 2.8.1995. Admittedly, there is no allegation in the said complaint that the respondent committed theft of the cheque in question. ', (int) 10 => '<p>8. According to the complaint, the cheque issued by the petitioner in favour of the respondent was presented in the Bank on 4.10.1995 and the same was dishonoured. Thereafter, the complainant sent a statutory notice on 13.10.1995. ', (int) 11 => '<p>9. As pointed out by the learned Magistrate, the complaint has been lodged with regard to the stolen cheque on 2.8.1995 itself, but even then there was no intimation by the accused to the Bank to stop the payment of the cheque, as it had been stolen. Moreover, the notice was issued by the complainant on 13.10.1995 which was received by the petitioner on 14.10.1995. There was no reply for this notice. ', (int) 12 => '<p>10. Under these circumstances, it is not understandable as to why documents relating to the theft complaint given against one Indira would be relevant to the issue to be decided in this case. When the Court feels that the documents sought to be summoned are unnecessary, the Court is entitled to reject the request of the petitioner. Therefore, in my view, there is no infirmity in the impugned order and as such, the revision is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Consequently, Crl.M.P. No. 2241 of 1997 is also dismissed. The trial Court is directed to go on with the trial as expeditiously as possible. <p>', (int) 13 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 14 $i = (int) 5include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
3. This application was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the request of the accused to summon the documents is even before the commencement of the prosecution evidence and that despite the alleged complaint at 2.8.1995, there is no effort taken by the petitioner/accused to stop the payment of the cheque through intimation to the Bank immediately after the alleged theft.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Mrs Saraswathi Vs V Balakrishnan - Citation 785422 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '785422', 'acts' => 'Negiotable Instrument Act, 1881 -- Sections 138; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> -- Sections 91', 'appealno' => 'Crl. R.C. No. 384 of 1997 and Crl. M.P. No. 2241 of 1997', 'appellant' => 'Mrs. Saraswathi', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Mrs. Saraswathi Vs. V. Balakrishnan', 'casenote' => ' - ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' Mr. D. Veerasekaran, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Mr. K.S. Padmanabhan, Adv.', 'court' => 'Chennai', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1999-01-25', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'M. Karpagavinayagam, J.', 'judgement' => 'Acts/Rules/Orders:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Negiotable Instrument Act, 1881 -- Section 138;Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -- Section 91</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Judgment Pronounced by M. Karpagavinayagam, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This revision is directed against the order dismissing the application filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 91 Cr.P.C. to call for certain documents from the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Crime General, Egmore, registered in No. 1873/ACC(G) Camp/ 2.8.1995. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The complainant, the respondent herein filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the year 1995. Before the trial commenced, the petitioner filed an application on 5.11.1996 stating that the petitioner never borrowed any money from the complainant, that one Indira took away the cheque from the accused and the said Indira misused the same without the knowledge of the accused and that therefore, she filed a complaint to the police on 2.8.1995 and that during the said enquiry by the police, some of the persons were summoned and they were examined and that those documents are essential documents to disprove the case of the complainant and so, those documents have to be summoned. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. This application was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the request of the accused to summon the documents is even before the commencement of the prosecution evidence and that despite the alleged complaint at 2.8.1995, there is no effort taken by the petitioner/accused to stop the payment of the cheque through intimation to the Bank immediately after the alleged theft. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. While attacking the impugned order, Mr. Veerasekaran, the counsel for the petitioner, would submit that with reference 'to the same cheque the petitioner has given a complaint against one Indira on 2.8.1995 itself regarding the theft of the said cheque and some statements were recorded in the said case and if those documents are produced before the Court, it would enable the accused to disprove the complainant's case. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Heard the counsel for both. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. I am not inclined to agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Section 91 Cr.P.C. confers powers on the Court to order for production of any document, if it is necessary or desirable for the purpose of trial. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In this case, the defence of the petitioner is that the cheque in question was stolen by one Indira and regarding this a complaint was filed on 2.8.1995. Admittedly, there is no allegation in the said complaint that the respondent committed theft of the cheque in question. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. According to the complaint, the cheque issued by the petitioner in favour of the respondent was presented in the Bank on 4.10.1995 and the same was dishonoured. Thereafter, the complainant sent a statutory notice on 13.10.1995. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. As pointed out by the learned Magistrate, the complaint has been lodged with regard to the stolen cheque on 2.8.1995 itself, but even then there was no intimation by the accused to the Bank to stop the payment of the cheque, as it had been stolen. Moreover, the notice was issued by the complainant on 13.10.1995 which was received by the petitioner on 14.10.1995. There was no reply for this notice. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Under these circumstances, it is not understandable as to why documents relating to the theft complaint given against one Indira would be relevant to the issue to be decided in this case. When the Court feels that the documents sought to be summoned are unnecessary, the Court is entitled to reject the request of the petitioner. Therefore, in my view, there is no infirmity in the impugned order and as such, the revision is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Consequently, Crl.M.P. No. 2241 of 1997 is also dismissed. The trial Court is directed to go on with the trial as expeditiously as possible. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1999(2)CTC298', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'V. Balakrishnan', 'sub' => 'Banking;Criminal ', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'mrs-saraswathi-vs-v-balakrishnan', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '785422', (int) 1 => 'mrs-saraswathi-vs-v-balakrishnan' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Mrs Saraswathi Vs V Balakrishnan - Citation 785422 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '785422', 'acts' => 'Negiotable Instrument Act, 1881 -- Sections 138; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> -- Sections 91', 'appealno' => 'Crl. R.C. No. 384 of 1997 and Crl. M.P. No. 2241 of 1997', 'appellant' => 'Mrs. Saraswathi', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Mrs. Saraswathi Vs. V. Balakrishnan', 'casenote' => ' - ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' Mr. D. Veerasekaran, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Mr. K.S. Padmanabhan, Adv.', 'court' => 'Chennai', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1999-01-25', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'M. Karpagavinayagam, J.', 'judgement' => 'Acts/Rules/Orders:</p><p>Negiotable Instrument Act, 1881 -- Section 138;Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -- Section 91</p><p>Judgment Pronounced by M. Karpagavinayagam, J.</p><p>1. This revision is directed against the order dismissing the application filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 91 Cr.P.C. to call for certain documents from the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Crime General, Egmore, registered in No. 1873/ACC(G) Camp/ 2.8.1995. </p><p>2. The complainant, the respondent herein filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the year 1995. Before the trial commenced, the petitioner filed an application on 5.11.1996 stating that the petitioner never borrowed any money from the complainant, that one Indira took away the cheque from the accused and the said Indira misused the same without the knowledge of the accused and that therefore, she filed a complaint to the police on 2.8.1995 and that during the said enquiry by the police, some of the persons were summoned and they were examined and that those documents are essential documents to disprove the case of the complainant and so, those documents have to be summoned. </p><p>3. This application was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the request of the accused to summon the documents is even before the commencement of the prosecution evidence and that despite the alleged complaint at 2.8.1995, there is no effort taken by the petitioner/accused to stop the payment of the cheque through intimation to the Bank immediately after the alleged theft. </p><p>4. While attacking the impugned order, Mr. Veerasekaran, the counsel for the petitioner, would submit that with reference 'to the same cheque the petitioner has given a complaint against one Indira on 2.8.1995 itself regarding the theft of the said cheque and some statements were recorded in the said case and if those documents are produced before the Court, it would enable the accused to disprove the complainant's case. </p><p>5. Heard the counsel for both. </p><p>6. I am not inclined to agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Section 91 Cr.P.C. confers powers on the Court to order for production of any document, if it is necessary or desirable for the purpose of trial. </p><p>7. In this case, the defence of the petitioner is that the cheque in question was stolen by one Indira and regarding this a complaint was filed on 2.8.1995. Admittedly, there is no allegation in the said complaint that the respondent committed theft of the cheque in question. </p><p>8. According to the complaint, the cheque issued by the petitioner in favour of the respondent was presented in the Bank on 4.10.1995 and the same was dishonoured. Thereafter, the complainant sent a statutory notice on 13.10.1995. </p><p>9. As pointed out by the learned Magistrate, the complaint has been lodged with regard to the stolen cheque on 2.8.1995 itself, but even then there was no intimation by the accused to the Bank to stop the payment of the cheque, as it had been stolen. Moreover, the notice was issued by the complainant on 13.10.1995 which was received by the petitioner on 14.10.1995. There was no reply for this notice. </p><p>10. Under these circumstances, it is not understandable as to why documents relating to the theft complaint given against one Indira would be relevant to the issue to be decided in this case. When the Court feels that the documents sought to be summoned are unnecessary, the Court is entitled to reject the request of the petitioner. Therefore, in my view, there is no infirmity in the impugned order and as such, the revision is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Consequently, Crl.M.P. No. 2241 of 1997 is also dismissed. The trial Court is directed to go on with the trial as expeditiously as possible. <p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1999(2)CTC298', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'V. Balakrishnan', 'sub' => 'Banking;Criminal ', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'mrs-saraswathi-vs-v-balakrishnan' $args = array( (int) 0 => '785422', (int) 1 => 'mrs-saraswathi-vs-v-balakrishnan' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/785422/mrs-saraswathi-vs-v-balakrishnan' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => 'Acts/Rules/Orders:', (int) 1 => '<p>Negiotable Instrument Act, 1881 -- Section 138;Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -- Section 91', (int) 2 => '<p>Judgment Pronounced by M. Karpagavinayagam, J.', (int) 3 => '<p>1. This revision is directed against the order dismissing the application filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 91 Cr.P.C. to call for certain documents from the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Crime General, Egmore, registered in No. 1873/ACC(G) Camp/ 2.8.1995. ', (int) 4 => '<p>2. The complainant, the respondent herein filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the year 1995. Before the trial commenced, the petitioner filed an application on 5.11.1996 stating that the petitioner never borrowed any money from the complainant, that one Indira took away the cheque from the accused and the said Indira misused the same without the knowledge of the accused and that therefore, she filed a complaint to the police on 2.8.1995 and that during the said enquiry by the police, some of the persons were summoned and they were examined and that those documents are essential documents to disprove the case of the complainant and so, those documents have to be summoned. ', (int) 5 => '<p>3. This application was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the request of the accused to summon the documents is even before the commencement of the prosecution evidence and that despite the alleged complaint at 2.8.1995, there is no effort taken by the petitioner/accused to stop the payment of the cheque through intimation to the Bank immediately after the alleged theft. ', (int) 6 => '<p>4. While attacking the impugned order, Mr. Veerasekaran, the counsel for the petitioner, would submit that with reference 'to the same cheque the petitioner has given a complaint against one Indira on 2.8.1995 itself regarding the theft of the said cheque and some statements were recorded in the said case and if those documents are produced before the Court, it would enable the accused to disprove the complainant's case. ', (int) 7 => '<p>5. Heard the counsel for both. ', (int) 8 => '<p>6. I am not inclined to agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Section 91 Cr.P.C. confers powers on the Court to order for production of any document, if it is necessary or desirable for the purpose of trial. ', (int) 9 => '<p>7. In this case, the defence of the petitioner is that the cheque in question was stolen by one Indira and regarding this a complaint was filed on 2.8.1995. Admittedly, there is no allegation in the said complaint that the respondent committed theft of the cheque in question. ', (int) 10 => '<p>8. According to the complaint, the cheque issued by the petitioner in favour of the respondent was presented in the Bank on 4.10.1995 and the same was dishonoured. Thereafter, the complainant sent a statutory notice on 13.10.1995. ', (int) 11 => '<p>9. As pointed out by the learned Magistrate, the complaint has been lodged with regard to the stolen cheque on 2.8.1995 itself, but even then there was no intimation by the accused to the Bank to stop the payment of the cheque, as it had been stolen. Moreover, the notice was issued by the complainant on 13.10.1995 which was received by the petitioner on 14.10.1995. There was no reply for this notice. ', (int) 12 => '<p>10. Under these circumstances, it is not understandable as to why documents relating to the theft complaint given against one Indira would be relevant to the issue to be decided in this case. When the Court feels that the documents sought to be summoned are unnecessary, the Court is entitled to reject the request of the petitioner. Therefore, in my view, there is no infirmity in the impugned order and as such, the revision is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Consequently, Crl.M.P. No. 2241 of 1997 is also dismissed. The trial Court is directed to go on with the trial as expeditiously as possible. <p>', (int) 13 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 14 $i = (int) 6include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
4. While attacking the impugned order, Mr. Veerasekaran, the counsel for the petitioner, would submit that with reference 'to the same cheque the petitioner has given a complaint against one Indira on 2.8.1995 itself regarding the theft of the said cheque and some statements were recorded in the said case and if those documents are produced before the Court, it would enable the accused to disprove the complainant's case.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Mrs Saraswathi Vs V Balakrishnan - Citation 785422 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '785422', 'acts' => 'Negiotable Instrument Act, 1881 -- Sections 138; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> -- Sections 91', 'appealno' => 'Crl. R.C. No. 384 of 1997 and Crl. M.P. No. 2241 of 1997', 'appellant' => 'Mrs. Saraswathi', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Mrs. Saraswathi Vs. V. Balakrishnan', 'casenote' => ' - ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' Mr. D. Veerasekaran, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Mr. K.S. Padmanabhan, Adv.', 'court' => 'Chennai', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1999-01-25', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'M. Karpagavinayagam, J.', 'judgement' => 'Acts/Rules/Orders:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Negiotable Instrument Act, 1881 -- Section 138;Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -- Section 91</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Judgment Pronounced by M. Karpagavinayagam, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This revision is directed against the order dismissing the application filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 91 Cr.P.C. to call for certain documents from the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Crime General, Egmore, registered in No. 1873/ACC(G) Camp/ 2.8.1995. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The complainant, the respondent herein filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the year 1995. Before the trial commenced, the petitioner filed an application on 5.11.1996 stating that the petitioner never borrowed any money from the complainant, that one Indira took away the cheque from the accused and the said Indira misused the same without the knowledge of the accused and that therefore, she filed a complaint to the police on 2.8.1995 and that during the said enquiry by the police, some of the persons were summoned and they were examined and that those documents are essential documents to disprove the case of the complainant and so, those documents have to be summoned. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. This application was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the request of the accused to summon the documents is even before the commencement of the prosecution evidence and that despite the alleged complaint at 2.8.1995, there is no effort taken by the petitioner/accused to stop the payment of the cheque through intimation to the Bank immediately after the alleged theft. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. While attacking the impugned order, Mr. Veerasekaran, the counsel for the petitioner, would submit that with reference 'to the same cheque the petitioner has given a complaint against one Indira on 2.8.1995 itself regarding the theft of the said cheque and some statements were recorded in the said case and if those documents are produced before the Court, it would enable the accused to disprove the complainant's case. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Heard the counsel for both. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. I am not inclined to agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Section 91 Cr.P.C. confers powers on the Court to order for production of any document, if it is necessary or desirable for the purpose of trial. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In this case, the defence of the petitioner is that the cheque in question was stolen by one Indira and regarding this a complaint was filed on 2.8.1995. Admittedly, there is no allegation in the said complaint that the respondent committed theft of the cheque in question. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. According to the complaint, the cheque issued by the petitioner in favour of the respondent was presented in the Bank on 4.10.1995 and the same was dishonoured. Thereafter, the complainant sent a statutory notice on 13.10.1995. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. As pointed out by the learned Magistrate, the complaint has been lodged with regard to the stolen cheque on 2.8.1995 itself, but even then there was no intimation by the accused to the Bank to stop the payment of the cheque, as it had been stolen. Moreover, the notice was issued by the complainant on 13.10.1995 which was received by the petitioner on 14.10.1995. There was no reply for this notice. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Under these circumstances, it is not understandable as to why documents relating to the theft complaint given against one Indira would be relevant to the issue to be decided in this case. When the Court feels that the documents sought to be summoned are unnecessary, the Court is entitled to reject the request of the petitioner. Therefore, in my view, there is no infirmity in the impugned order and as such, the revision is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Consequently, Crl.M.P. No. 2241 of 1997 is also dismissed. The trial Court is directed to go on with the trial as expeditiously as possible. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1999(2)CTC298', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'V. Balakrishnan', 'sub' => 'Banking;Criminal ', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'mrs-saraswathi-vs-v-balakrishnan', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '785422', (int) 1 => 'mrs-saraswathi-vs-v-balakrishnan' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Mrs Saraswathi Vs V Balakrishnan - Citation 785422 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '785422', 'acts' => 'Negiotable Instrument Act, 1881 -- Sections 138; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> -- Sections 91', 'appealno' => 'Crl. R.C. No. 384 of 1997 and Crl. M.P. No. 2241 of 1997', 'appellant' => 'Mrs. Saraswathi', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Mrs. Saraswathi Vs. V. Balakrishnan', 'casenote' => ' - ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' Mr. D. Veerasekaran, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Mr. K.S. Padmanabhan, Adv.', 'court' => 'Chennai', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1999-01-25', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'M. Karpagavinayagam, J.', 'judgement' => 'Acts/Rules/Orders:</p><p>Negiotable Instrument Act, 1881 -- Section 138;Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -- Section 91</p><p>Judgment Pronounced by M. Karpagavinayagam, J.</p><p>1. This revision is directed against the order dismissing the application filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 91 Cr.P.C. to call for certain documents from the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Crime General, Egmore, registered in No. 1873/ACC(G) Camp/ 2.8.1995. </p><p>2. The complainant, the respondent herein filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the year 1995. Before the trial commenced, the petitioner filed an application on 5.11.1996 stating that the petitioner never borrowed any money from the complainant, that one Indira took away the cheque from the accused and the said Indira misused the same without the knowledge of the accused and that therefore, she filed a complaint to the police on 2.8.1995 and that during the said enquiry by the police, some of the persons were summoned and they were examined and that those documents are essential documents to disprove the case of the complainant and so, those documents have to be summoned. </p><p>3. This application was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the request of the accused to summon the documents is even before the commencement of the prosecution evidence and that despite the alleged complaint at 2.8.1995, there is no effort taken by the petitioner/accused to stop the payment of the cheque through intimation to the Bank immediately after the alleged theft. </p><p>4. While attacking the impugned order, Mr. Veerasekaran, the counsel for the petitioner, would submit that with reference 'to the same cheque the petitioner has given a complaint against one Indira on 2.8.1995 itself regarding the theft of the said cheque and some statements were recorded in the said case and if those documents are produced before the Court, it would enable the accused to disprove the complainant's case. </p><p>5. Heard the counsel for both. </p><p>6. I am not inclined to agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Section 91 Cr.P.C. confers powers on the Court to order for production of any document, if it is necessary or desirable for the purpose of trial. </p><p>7. In this case, the defence of the petitioner is that the cheque in question was stolen by one Indira and regarding this a complaint was filed on 2.8.1995. Admittedly, there is no allegation in the said complaint that the respondent committed theft of the cheque in question. </p><p>8. According to the complaint, the cheque issued by the petitioner in favour of the respondent was presented in the Bank on 4.10.1995 and the same was dishonoured. Thereafter, the complainant sent a statutory notice on 13.10.1995. </p><p>9. As pointed out by the learned Magistrate, the complaint has been lodged with regard to the stolen cheque on 2.8.1995 itself, but even then there was no intimation by the accused to the Bank to stop the payment of the cheque, as it had been stolen. Moreover, the notice was issued by the complainant on 13.10.1995 which was received by the petitioner on 14.10.1995. There was no reply for this notice. </p><p>10. Under these circumstances, it is not understandable as to why documents relating to the theft complaint given against one Indira would be relevant to the issue to be decided in this case. When the Court feels that the documents sought to be summoned are unnecessary, the Court is entitled to reject the request of the petitioner. Therefore, in my view, there is no infirmity in the impugned order and as such, the revision is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Consequently, Crl.M.P. No. 2241 of 1997 is also dismissed. The trial Court is directed to go on with the trial as expeditiously as possible. <p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1999(2)CTC298', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'V. Balakrishnan', 'sub' => 'Banking;Criminal ', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'mrs-saraswathi-vs-v-balakrishnan' $args = array( (int) 0 => '785422', (int) 1 => 'mrs-saraswathi-vs-v-balakrishnan' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/785422/mrs-saraswathi-vs-v-balakrishnan' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => 'Acts/Rules/Orders:', (int) 1 => '<p>Negiotable Instrument Act, 1881 -- Section 138;Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -- Section 91', (int) 2 => '<p>Judgment Pronounced by M. Karpagavinayagam, J.', (int) 3 => '<p>1. This revision is directed against the order dismissing the application filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 91 Cr.P.C. to call for certain documents from the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Crime General, Egmore, registered in No. 1873/ACC(G) Camp/ 2.8.1995. ', (int) 4 => '<p>2. The complainant, the respondent herein filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the year 1995. Before the trial commenced, the petitioner filed an application on 5.11.1996 stating that the petitioner never borrowed any money from the complainant, that one Indira took away the cheque from the accused and the said Indira misused the same without the knowledge of the accused and that therefore, she filed a complaint to the police on 2.8.1995 and that during the said enquiry by the police, some of the persons were summoned and they were examined and that those documents are essential documents to disprove the case of the complainant and so, those documents have to be summoned. ', (int) 5 => '<p>3. This application was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the request of the accused to summon the documents is even before the commencement of the prosecution evidence and that despite the alleged complaint at 2.8.1995, there is no effort taken by the petitioner/accused to stop the payment of the cheque through intimation to the Bank immediately after the alleged theft. ', (int) 6 => '<p>4. While attacking the impugned order, Mr. Veerasekaran, the counsel for the petitioner, would submit that with reference 'to the same cheque the petitioner has given a complaint against one Indira on 2.8.1995 itself regarding the theft of the said cheque and some statements were recorded in the said case and if those documents are produced before the Court, it would enable the accused to disprove the complainant's case. ', (int) 7 => '<p>5. Heard the counsel for both. ', (int) 8 => '<p>6. I am not inclined to agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Section 91 Cr.P.C. confers powers on the Court to order for production of any document, if it is necessary or desirable for the purpose of trial. ', (int) 9 => '<p>7. In this case, the defence of the petitioner is that the cheque in question was stolen by one Indira and regarding this a complaint was filed on 2.8.1995. Admittedly, there is no allegation in the said complaint that the respondent committed theft of the cheque in question. ', (int) 10 => '<p>8. According to the complaint, the cheque issued by the petitioner in favour of the respondent was presented in the Bank on 4.10.1995 and the same was dishonoured. Thereafter, the complainant sent a statutory notice on 13.10.1995. ', (int) 11 => '<p>9. As pointed out by the learned Magistrate, the complaint has been lodged with regard to the stolen cheque on 2.8.1995 itself, but even then there was no intimation by the accused to the Bank to stop the payment of the cheque, as it had been stolen. Moreover, the notice was issued by the complainant on 13.10.1995 which was received by the petitioner on 14.10.1995. There was no reply for this notice. ', (int) 12 => '<p>10. Under these circumstances, it is not understandable as to why documents relating to the theft complaint given against one Indira would be relevant to the issue to be decided in this case. When the Court feels that the documents sought to be summoned are unnecessary, the Court is entitled to reject the request of the petitioner. Therefore, in my view, there is no infirmity in the impugned order and as such, the revision is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Consequently, Crl.M.P. No. 2241 of 1997 is also dismissed. The trial Court is directed to go on with the trial as expeditiously as possible. <p>', (int) 13 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 14 $i = (int) 7include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
5. Heard the counsel for both.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Mrs Saraswathi Vs V Balakrishnan - Citation 785422 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '785422', 'acts' => 'Negiotable Instrument Act, 1881 -- Sections 138; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> -- Sections 91', 'appealno' => 'Crl. R.C. No. 384 of 1997 and Crl. M.P. No. 2241 of 1997', 'appellant' => 'Mrs. Saraswathi', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Mrs. Saraswathi Vs. V. Balakrishnan', 'casenote' => ' - ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' Mr. D. Veerasekaran, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Mr. K.S. Padmanabhan, Adv.', 'court' => 'Chennai', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1999-01-25', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'M. Karpagavinayagam, J.', 'judgement' => 'Acts/Rules/Orders:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Negiotable Instrument Act, 1881 -- Section 138;Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -- Section 91</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Judgment Pronounced by M. Karpagavinayagam, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This revision is directed against the order dismissing the application filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 91 Cr.P.C. to call for certain documents from the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Crime General, Egmore, registered in No. 1873/ACC(G) Camp/ 2.8.1995. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The complainant, the respondent herein filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the year 1995. Before the trial commenced, the petitioner filed an application on 5.11.1996 stating that the petitioner never borrowed any money from the complainant, that one Indira took away the cheque from the accused and the said Indira misused the same without the knowledge of the accused and that therefore, she filed a complaint to the police on 2.8.1995 and that during the said enquiry by the police, some of the persons were summoned and they were examined and that those documents are essential documents to disprove the case of the complainant and so, those documents have to be summoned. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. This application was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the request of the accused to summon the documents is even before the commencement of the prosecution evidence and that despite the alleged complaint at 2.8.1995, there is no effort taken by the petitioner/accused to stop the payment of the cheque through intimation to the Bank immediately after the alleged theft. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. While attacking the impugned order, Mr. Veerasekaran, the counsel for the petitioner, would submit that with reference 'to the same cheque the petitioner has given a complaint against one Indira on 2.8.1995 itself regarding the theft of the said cheque and some statements were recorded in the said case and if those documents are produced before the Court, it would enable the accused to disprove the complainant's case. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Heard the counsel for both. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. I am not inclined to agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Section 91 Cr.P.C. confers powers on the Court to order for production of any document, if it is necessary or desirable for the purpose of trial. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In this case, the defence of the petitioner is that the cheque in question was stolen by one Indira and regarding this a complaint was filed on 2.8.1995. Admittedly, there is no allegation in the said complaint that the respondent committed theft of the cheque in question. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. According to the complaint, the cheque issued by the petitioner in favour of the respondent was presented in the Bank on 4.10.1995 and the same was dishonoured. Thereafter, the complainant sent a statutory notice on 13.10.1995. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. As pointed out by the learned Magistrate, the complaint has been lodged with regard to the stolen cheque on 2.8.1995 itself, but even then there was no intimation by the accused to the Bank to stop the payment of the cheque, as it had been stolen. Moreover, the notice was issued by the complainant on 13.10.1995 which was received by the petitioner on 14.10.1995. There was no reply for this notice. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Under these circumstances, it is not understandable as to why documents relating to the theft complaint given against one Indira would be relevant to the issue to be decided in this case. When the Court feels that the documents sought to be summoned are unnecessary, the Court is entitled to reject the request of the petitioner. Therefore, in my view, there is no infirmity in the impugned order and as such, the revision is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Consequently, Crl.M.P. No. 2241 of 1997 is also dismissed. The trial Court is directed to go on with the trial as expeditiously as possible. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1999(2)CTC298', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'V. Balakrishnan', 'sub' => 'Banking;Criminal ', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'mrs-saraswathi-vs-v-balakrishnan', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '785422', (int) 1 => 'mrs-saraswathi-vs-v-balakrishnan' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Mrs Saraswathi Vs V Balakrishnan - Citation 785422 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '785422', 'acts' => 'Negiotable Instrument Act, 1881 -- Sections 138; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> -- Sections 91', 'appealno' => 'Crl. R.C. No. 384 of 1997 and Crl. M.P. No. 2241 of 1997', 'appellant' => 'Mrs. Saraswathi', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Mrs. Saraswathi Vs. V. Balakrishnan', 'casenote' => ' - ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' Mr. D. Veerasekaran, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Mr. K.S. Padmanabhan, Adv.', 'court' => 'Chennai', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1999-01-25', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'M. Karpagavinayagam, J.', 'judgement' => 'Acts/Rules/Orders:</p><p>Negiotable Instrument Act, 1881 -- Section 138;Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -- Section 91</p><p>Judgment Pronounced by M. Karpagavinayagam, J.</p><p>1. This revision is directed against the order dismissing the application filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 91 Cr.P.C. to call for certain documents from the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Crime General, Egmore, registered in No. 1873/ACC(G) Camp/ 2.8.1995. </p><p>2. The complainant, the respondent herein filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the year 1995. Before the trial commenced, the petitioner filed an application on 5.11.1996 stating that the petitioner never borrowed any money from the complainant, that one Indira took away the cheque from the accused and the said Indira misused the same without the knowledge of the accused and that therefore, she filed a complaint to the police on 2.8.1995 and that during the said enquiry by the police, some of the persons were summoned and they were examined and that those documents are essential documents to disprove the case of the complainant and so, those documents have to be summoned. </p><p>3. This application was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the request of the accused to summon the documents is even before the commencement of the prosecution evidence and that despite the alleged complaint at 2.8.1995, there is no effort taken by the petitioner/accused to stop the payment of the cheque through intimation to the Bank immediately after the alleged theft. </p><p>4. While attacking the impugned order, Mr. Veerasekaran, the counsel for the petitioner, would submit that with reference 'to the same cheque the petitioner has given a complaint against one Indira on 2.8.1995 itself regarding the theft of the said cheque and some statements were recorded in the said case and if those documents are produced before the Court, it would enable the accused to disprove the complainant's case. </p><p>5. Heard the counsel for both. </p><p>6. I am not inclined to agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Section 91 Cr.P.C. confers powers on the Court to order for production of any document, if it is necessary or desirable for the purpose of trial. </p><p>7. In this case, the defence of the petitioner is that the cheque in question was stolen by one Indira and regarding this a complaint was filed on 2.8.1995. Admittedly, there is no allegation in the said complaint that the respondent committed theft of the cheque in question. </p><p>8. According to the complaint, the cheque issued by the petitioner in favour of the respondent was presented in the Bank on 4.10.1995 and the same was dishonoured. Thereafter, the complainant sent a statutory notice on 13.10.1995. </p><p>9. As pointed out by the learned Magistrate, the complaint has been lodged with regard to the stolen cheque on 2.8.1995 itself, but even then there was no intimation by the accused to the Bank to stop the payment of the cheque, as it had been stolen. Moreover, the notice was issued by the complainant on 13.10.1995 which was received by the petitioner on 14.10.1995. There was no reply for this notice. </p><p>10. Under these circumstances, it is not understandable as to why documents relating to the theft complaint given against one Indira would be relevant to the issue to be decided in this case. When the Court feels that the documents sought to be summoned are unnecessary, the Court is entitled to reject the request of the petitioner. Therefore, in my view, there is no infirmity in the impugned order and as such, the revision is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Consequently, Crl.M.P. No. 2241 of 1997 is also dismissed. The trial Court is directed to go on with the trial as expeditiously as possible. <p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1999(2)CTC298', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'V. Balakrishnan', 'sub' => 'Banking;Criminal ', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'mrs-saraswathi-vs-v-balakrishnan' $args = array( (int) 0 => '785422', (int) 1 => 'mrs-saraswathi-vs-v-balakrishnan' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/785422/mrs-saraswathi-vs-v-balakrishnan' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => 'Acts/Rules/Orders:', (int) 1 => '<p>Negiotable Instrument Act, 1881 -- Section 138;Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -- Section 91', (int) 2 => '<p>Judgment Pronounced by M. Karpagavinayagam, J.', (int) 3 => '<p>1. This revision is directed against the order dismissing the application filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 91 Cr.P.C. to call for certain documents from the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Crime General, Egmore, registered in No. 1873/ACC(G) Camp/ 2.8.1995. ', (int) 4 => '<p>2. The complainant, the respondent herein filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the year 1995. Before the trial commenced, the petitioner filed an application on 5.11.1996 stating that the petitioner never borrowed any money from the complainant, that one Indira took away the cheque from the accused and the said Indira misused the same without the knowledge of the accused and that therefore, she filed a complaint to the police on 2.8.1995 and that during the said enquiry by the police, some of the persons were summoned and they were examined and that those documents are essential documents to disprove the case of the complainant and so, those documents have to be summoned. ', (int) 5 => '<p>3. This application was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the request of the accused to summon the documents is even before the commencement of the prosecution evidence and that despite the alleged complaint at 2.8.1995, there is no effort taken by the petitioner/accused to stop the payment of the cheque through intimation to the Bank immediately after the alleged theft. ', (int) 6 => '<p>4. While attacking the impugned order, Mr. Veerasekaran, the counsel for the petitioner, would submit that with reference 'to the same cheque the petitioner has given a complaint against one Indira on 2.8.1995 itself regarding the theft of the said cheque and some statements were recorded in the said case and if those documents are produced before the Court, it would enable the accused to disprove the complainant's case. ', (int) 7 => '<p>5. Heard the counsel for both. ', (int) 8 => '<p>6. I am not inclined to agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Section 91 Cr.P.C. confers powers on the Court to order for production of any document, if it is necessary or desirable for the purpose of trial. ', (int) 9 => '<p>7. In this case, the defence of the petitioner is that the cheque in question was stolen by one Indira and regarding this a complaint was filed on 2.8.1995. Admittedly, there is no allegation in the said complaint that the respondent committed theft of the cheque in question. ', (int) 10 => '<p>8. According to the complaint, the cheque issued by the petitioner in favour of the respondent was presented in the Bank on 4.10.1995 and the same was dishonoured. Thereafter, the complainant sent a statutory notice on 13.10.1995. ', (int) 11 => '<p>9. As pointed out by the learned Magistrate, the complaint has been lodged with regard to the stolen cheque on 2.8.1995 itself, but even then there was no intimation by the accused to the Bank to stop the payment of the cheque, as it had been stolen. Moreover, the notice was issued by the complainant on 13.10.1995 which was received by the petitioner on 14.10.1995. There was no reply for this notice. ', (int) 12 => '<p>10. Under these circumstances, it is not understandable as to why documents relating to the theft complaint given against one Indira would be relevant to the issue to be decided in this case. When the Court feels that the documents sought to be summoned are unnecessary, the Court is entitled to reject the request of the petitioner. Therefore, in my view, there is no infirmity in the impugned order and as such, the revision is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Consequently, Crl.M.P. No. 2241 of 1997 is also dismissed. The trial Court is directed to go on with the trial as expeditiously as possible. <p>', (int) 13 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 14 $i = (int) 8include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
6. I am not inclined to agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Section 91 Cr.P.C. confers powers on the Court to order for production of any document, if it is necessary or desirable for the purpose of trial.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Mrs Saraswathi Vs V Balakrishnan - Citation 785422 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '785422', 'acts' => 'Negiotable Instrument Act, 1881 -- Sections 138; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> -- Sections 91', 'appealno' => 'Crl. R.C. No. 384 of 1997 and Crl. M.P. No. 2241 of 1997', 'appellant' => 'Mrs. Saraswathi', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Mrs. Saraswathi Vs. V. Balakrishnan', 'casenote' => ' - ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' Mr. D. Veerasekaran, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Mr. K.S. Padmanabhan, Adv.', 'court' => 'Chennai', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1999-01-25', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'M. Karpagavinayagam, J.', 'judgement' => 'Acts/Rules/Orders:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Negiotable Instrument Act, 1881 -- Section 138;Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -- Section 91</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Judgment Pronounced by M. Karpagavinayagam, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This revision is directed against the order dismissing the application filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 91 Cr.P.C. to call for certain documents from the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Crime General, Egmore, registered in No. 1873/ACC(G) Camp/ 2.8.1995. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The complainant, the respondent herein filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the year 1995. Before the trial commenced, the petitioner filed an application on 5.11.1996 stating that the petitioner never borrowed any money from the complainant, that one Indira took away the cheque from the accused and the said Indira misused the same without the knowledge of the accused and that therefore, she filed a complaint to the police on 2.8.1995 and that during the said enquiry by the police, some of the persons were summoned and they were examined and that those documents are essential documents to disprove the case of the complainant and so, those documents have to be summoned. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. This application was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the request of the accused to summon the documents is even before the commencement of the prosecution evidence and that despite the alleged complaint at 2.8.1995, there is no effort taken by the petitioner/accused to stop the payment of the cheque through intimation to the Bank immediately after the alleged theft. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. While attacking the impugned order, Mr. Veerasekaran, the counsel for the petitioner, would submit that with reference 'to the same cheque the petitioner has given a complaint against one Indira on 2.8.1995 itself regarding the theft of the said cheque and some statements were recorded in the said case and if those documents are produced before the Court, it would enable the accused to disprove the complainant's case. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Heard the counsel for both. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. I am not inclined to agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Section 91 Cr.P.C. confers powers on the Court to order for production of any document, if it is necessary or desirable for the purpose of trial. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In this case, the defence of the petitioner is that the cheque in question was stolen by one Indira and regarding this a complaint was filed on 2.8.1995. Admittedly, there is no allegation in the said complaint that the respondent committed theft of the cheque in question. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. According to the complaint, the cheque issued by the petitioner in favour of the respondent was presented in the Bank on 4.10.1995 and the same was dishonoured. Thereafter, the complainant sent a statutory notice on 13.10.1995. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. As pointed out by the learned Magistrate, the complaint has been lodged with regard to the stolen cheque on 2.8.1995 itself, but even then there was no intimation by the accused to the Bank to stop the payment of the cheque, as it had been stolen. Moreover, the notice was issued by the complainant on 13.10.1995 which was received by the petitioner on 14.10.1995. There was no reply for this notice. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Under these circumstances, it is not understandable as to why documents relating to the theft complaint given against one Indira would be relevant to the issue to be decided in this case. When the Court feels that the documents sought to be summoned are unnecessary, the Court is entitled to reject the request of the petitioner. Therefore, in my view, there is no infirmity in the impugned order and as such, the revision is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Consequently, Crl.M.P. No. 2241 of 1997 is also dismissed. The trial Court is directed to go on with the trial as expeditiously as possible. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1999(2)CTC298', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'V. Balakrishnan', 'sub' => 'Banking;Criminal ', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'mrs-saraswathi-vs-v-balakrishnan', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '785422', (int) 1 => 'mrs-saraswathi-vs-v-balakrishnan' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Mrs Saraswathi Vs V Balakrishnan - Citation 785422 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '785422', 'acts' => 'Negiotable Instrument Act, 1881 -- Sections 138; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> -- Sections 91', 'appealno' => 'Crl. R.C. No. 384 of 1997 and Crl. M.P. No. 2241 of 1997', 'appellant' => 'Mrs. Saraswathi', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Mrs. Saraswathi Vs. V. Balakrishnan', 'casenote' => ' - ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' Mr. D. Veerasekaran, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Mr. K.S. Padmanabhan, Adv.', 'court' => 'Chennai', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1999-01-25', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'M. Karpagavinayagam, J.', 'judgement' => 'Acts/Rules/Orders:</p><p>Negiotable Instrument Act, 1881 -- Section 138;Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -- Section 91</p><p>Judgment Pronounced by M. Karpagavinayagam, J.</p><p>1. This revision is directed against the order dismissing the application filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 91 Cr.P.C. to call for certain documents from the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Crime General, Egmore, registered in No. 1873/ACC(G) Camp/ 2.8.1995. </p><p>2. The complainant, the respondent herein filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the year 1995. Before the trial commenced, the petitioner filed an application on 5.11.1996 stating that the petitioner never borrowed any money from the complainant, that one Indira took away the cheque from the accused and the said Indira misused the same without the knowledge of the accused and that therefore, she filed a complaint to the police on 2.8.1995 and that during the said enquiry by the police, some of the persons were summoned and they were examined and that those documents are essential documents to disprove the case of the complainant and so, those documents have to be summoned. </p><p>3. This application was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the request of the accused to summon the documents is even before the commencement of the prosecution evidence and that despite the alleged complaint at 2.8.1995, there is no effort taken by the petitioner/accused to stop the payment of the cheque through intimation to the Bank immediately after the alleged theft. </p><p>4. While attacking the impugned order, Mr. Veerasekaran, the counsel for the petitioner, would submit that with reference 'to the same cheque the petitioner has given a complaint against one Indira on 2.8.1995 itself regarding the theft of the said cheque and some statements were recorded in the said case and if those documents are produced before the Court, it would enable the accused to disprove the complainant's case. </p><p>5. Heard the counsel for both. </p><p>6. I am not inclined to agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Section 91 Cr.P.C. confers powers on the Court to order for production of any document, if it is necessary or desirable for the purpose of trial. </p><p>7. In this case, the defence of the petitioner is that the cheque in question was stolen by one Indira and regarding this a complaint was filed on 2.8.1995. Admittedly, there is no allegation in the said complaint that the respondent committed theft of the cheque in question. </p><p>8. According to the complaint, the cheque issued by the petitioner in favour of the respondent was presented in the Bank on 4.10.1995 and the same was dishonoured. Thereafter, the complainant sent a statutory notice on 13.10.1995. </p><p>9. As pointed out by the learned Magistrate, the complaint has been lodged with regard to the stolen cheque on 2.8.1995 itself, but even then there was no intimation by the accused to the Bank to stop the payment of the cheque, as it had been stolen. Moreover, the notice was issued by the complainant on 13.10.1995 which was received by the petitioner on 14.10.1995. There was no reply for this notice. </p><p>10. Under these circumstances, it is not understandable as to why documents relating to the theft complaint given against one Indira would be relevant to the issue to be decided in this case. When the Court feels that the documents sought to be summoned are unnecessary, the Court is entitled to reject the request of the petitioner. Therefore, in my view, there is no infirmity in the impugned order and as such, the revision is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Consequently, Crl.M.P. No. 2241 of 1997 is also dismissed. The trial Court is directed to go on with the trial as expeditiously as possible. <p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1999(2)CTC298', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'V. Balakrishnan', 'sub' => 'Banking;Criminal ', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'mrs-saraswathi-vs-v-balakrishnan' $args = array( (int) 0 => '785422', (int) 1 => 'mrs-saraswathi-vs-v-balakrishnan' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/785422/mrs-saraswathi-vs-v-balakrishnan' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => 'Acts/Rules/Orders:', (int) 1 => '<p>Negiotable Instrument Act, 1881 -- Section 138;Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -- Section 91', (int) 2 => '<p>Judgment Pronounced by M. Karpagavinayagam, J.', (int) 3 => '<p>1. This revision is directed against the order dismissing the application filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 91 Cr.P.C. to call for certain documents from the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Crime General, Egmore, registered in No. 1873/ACC(G) Camp/ 2.8.1995. ', (int) 4 => '<p>2. The complainant, the respondent herein filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the year 1995. Before the trial commenced, the petitioner filed an application on 5.11.1996 stating that the petitioner never borrowed any money from the complainant, that one Indira took away the cheque from the accused and the said Indira misused the same without the knowledge of the accused and that therefore, she filed a complaint to the police on 2.8.1995 and that during the said enquiry by the police, some of the persons were summoned and they were examined and that those documents are essential documents to disprove the case of the complainant and so, those documents have to be summoned. ', (int) 5 => '<p>3. This application was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the request of the accused to summon the documents is even before the commencement of the prosecution evidence and that despite the alleged complaint at 2.8.1995, there is no effort taken by the petitioner/accused to stop the payment of the cheque through intimation to the Bank immediately after the alleged theft. ', (int) 6 => '<p>4. While attacking the impugned order, Mr. Veerasekaran, the counsel for the petitioner, would submit that with reference 'to the same cheque the petitioner has given a complaint against one Indira on 2.8.1995 itself regarding the theft of the said cheque and some statements were recorded in the said case and if those documents are produced before the Court, it would enable the accused to disprove the complainant's case. ', (int) 7 => '<p>5. Heard the counsel for both. ', (int) 8 => '<p>6. I am not inclined to agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Section 91 Cr.P.C. confers powers on the Court to order for production of any document, if it is necessary or desirable for the purpose of trial. ', (int) 9 => '<p>7. In this case, the defence of the petitioner is that the cheque in question was stolen by one Indira and regarding this a complaint was filed on 2.8.1995. Admittedly, there is no allegation in the said complaint that the respondent committed theft of the cheque in question. ', (int) 10 => '<p>8. According to the complaint, the cheque issued by the petitioner in favour of the respondent was presented in the Bank on 4.10.1995 and the same was dishonoured. Thereafter, the complainant sent a statutory notice on 13.10.1995. ', (int) 11 => '<p>9. As pointed out by the learned Magistrate, the complaint has been lodged with regard to the stolen cheque on 2.8.1995 itself, but even then there was no intimation by the accused to the Bank to stop the payment of the cheque, as it had been stolen. Moreover, the notice was issued by the complainant on 13.10.1995 which was received by the petitioner on 14.10.1995. There was no reply for this notice. ', (int) 12 => '<p>10. Under these circumstances, it is not understandable as to why documents relating to the theft complaint given against one Indira would be relevant to the issue to be decided in this case. When the Court feels that the documents sought to be summoned are unnecessary, the Court is entitled to reject the request of the petitioner. Therefore, in my view, there is no infirmity in the impugned order and as such, the revision is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Consequently, Crl.M.P. No. 2241 of 1997 is also dismissed. The trial Court is directed to go on with the trial as expeditiously as possible. <p>', (int) 13 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 14 $i = (int) 9include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
7. In this case, the defence of the petitioner is that the cheque in question was stolen by one Indira and regarding this a complaint was filed on 2.8.1995. Admittedly, there is no allegation in the said complaint that the respondent committed theft of the cheque in question.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Mrs Saraswathi Vs V Balakrishnan - Citation 785422 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '785422', 'acts' => 'Negiotable Instrument Act, 1881 -- Sections 138; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> -- Sections 91', 'appealno' => 'Crl. R.C. No. 384 of 1997 and Crl. M.P. No. 2241 of 1997', 'appellant' => 'Mrs. Saraswathi', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Mrs. Saraswathi Vs. V. Balakrishnan', 'casenote' => ' - ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' Mr. D. Veerasekaran, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Mr. K.S. Padmanabhan, Adv.', 'court' => 'Chennai', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1999-01-25', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'M. Karpagavinayagam, J.', 'judgement' => 'Acts/Rules/Orders:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Negiotable Instrument Act, 1881 -- Section 138;Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -- Section 91</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Judgment Pronounced by M. Karpagavinayagam, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This revision is directed against the order dismissing the application filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 91 Cr.P.C. to call for certain documents from the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Crime General, Egmore, registered in No. 1873/ACC(G) Camp/ 2.8.1995. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The complainant, the respondent herein filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the year 1995. Before the trial commenced, the petitioner filed an application on 5.11.1996 stating that the petitioner never borrowed any money from the complainant, that one Indira took away the cheque from the accused and the said Indira misused the same without the knowledge of the accused and that therefore, she filed a complaint to the police on 2.8.1995 and that during the said enquiry by the police, some of the persons were summoned and they were examined and that those documents are essential documents to disprove the case of the complainant and so, those documents have to be summoned. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. This application was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the request of the accused to summon the documents is even before the commencement of the prosecution evidence and that despite the alleged complaint at 2.8.1995, there is no effort taken by the petitioner/accused to stop the payment of the cheque through intimation to the Bank immediately after the alleged theft. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. While attacking the impugned order, Mr. Veerasekaran, the counsel for the petitioner, would submit that with reference 'to the same cheque the petitioner has given a complaint against one Indira on 2.8.1995 itself regarding the theft of the said cheque and some statements were recorded in the said case and if those documents are produced before the Court, it would enable the accused to disprove the complainant's case. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Heard the counsel for both. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. I am not inclined to agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Section 91 Cr.P.C. confers powers on the Court to order for production of any document, if it is necessary or desirable for the purpose of trial. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In this case, the defence of the petitioner is that the cheque in question was stolen by one Indira and regarding this a complaint was filed on 2.8.1995. Admittedly, there is no allegation in the said complaint that the respondent committed theft of the cheque in question. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. According to the complaint, the cheque issued by the petitioner in favour of the respondent was presented in the Bank on 4.10.1995 and the same was dishonoured. Thereafter, the complainant sent a statutory notice on 13.10.1995. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. As pointed out by the learned Magistrate, the complaint has been lodged with regard to the stolen cheque on 2.8.1995 itself, but even then there was no intimation by the accused to the Bank to stop the payment of the cheque, as it had been stolen. Moreover, the notice was issued by the complainant on 13.10.1995 which was received by the petitioner on 14.10.1995. There was no reply for this notice. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Under these circumstances, it is not understandable as to why documents relating to the theft complaint given against one Indira would be relevant to the issue to be decided in this case. When the Court feels that the documents sought to be summoned are unnecessary, the Court is entitled to reject the request of the petitioner. Therefore, in my view, there is no infirmity in the impugned order and as such, the revision is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Consequently, Crl.M.P. No. 2241 of 1997 is also dismissed. The trial Court is directed to go on with the trial as expeditiously as possible. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1999(2)CTC298', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'V. Balakrishnan', 'sub' => 'Banking;Criminal ', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'mrs-saraswathi-vs-v-balakrishnan', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '785422', (int) 1 => 'mrs-saraswathi-vs-v-balakrishnan' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Mrs Saraswathi Vs V Balakrishnan - Citation 785422 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '785422', 'acts' => 'Negiotable Instrument Act, 1881 -- Sections 138; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> -- Sections 91', 'appealno' => 'Crl. R.C. No. 384 of 1997 and Crl. M.P. No. 2241 of 1997', 'appellant' => 'Mrs. Saraswathi', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Mrs. Saraswathi Vs. V. Balakrishnan', 'casenote' => ' - ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' Mr. D. Veerasekaran, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Mr. K.S. Padmanabhan, Adv.', 'court' => 'Chennai', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1999-01-25', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'M. Karpagavinayagam, J.', 'judgement' => 'Acts/Rules/Orders:</p><p>Negiotable Instrument Act, 1881 -- Section 138;Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -- Section 91</p><p>Judgment Pronounced by M. Karpagavinayagam, J.</p><p>1. This revision is directed against the order dismissing the application filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 91 Cr.P.C. to call for certain documents from the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Crime General, Egmore, registered in No. 1873/ACC(G) Camp/ 2.8.1995. </p><p>2. The complainant, the respondent herein filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the year 1995. Before the trial commenced, the petitioner filed an application on 5.11.1996 stating that the petitioner never borrowed any money from the complainant, that one Indira took away the cheque from the accused and the said Indira misused the same without the knowledge of the accused and that therefore, she filed a complaint to the police on 2.8.1995 and that during the said enquiry by the police, some of the persons were summoned and they were examined and that those documents are essential documents to disprove the case of the complainant and so, those documents have to be summoned. </p><p>3. This application was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the request of the accused to summon the documents is even before the commencement of the prosecution evidence and that despite the alleged complaint at 2.8.1995, there is no effort taken by the petitioner/accused to stop the payment of the cheque through intimation to the Bank immediately after the alleged theft. </p><p>4. While attacking the impugned order, Mr. Veerasekaran, the counsel for the petitioner, would submit that with reference 'to the same cheque the petitioner has given a complaint against one Indira on 2.8.1995 itself regarding the theft of the said cheque and some statements were recorded in the said case and if those documents are produced before the Court, it would enable the accused to disprove the complainant's case. </p><p>5. Heard the counsel for both. </p><p>6. I am not inclined to agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Section 91 Cr.P.C. confers powers on the Court to order for production of any document, if it is necessary or desirable for the purpose of trial. </p><p>7. In this case, the defence of the petitioner is that the cheque in question was stolen by one Indira and regarding this a complaint was filed on 2.8.1995. Admittedly, there is no allegation in the said complaint that the respondent committed theft of the cheque in question. </p><p>8. According to the complaint, the cheque issued by the petitioner in favour of the respondent was presented in the Bank on 4.10.1995 and the same was dishonoured. Thereafter, the complainant sent a statutory notice on 13.10.1995. </p><p>9. As pointed out by the learned Magistrate, the complaint has been lodged with regard to the stolen cheque on 2.8.1995 itself, but even then there was no intimation by the accused to the Bank to stop the payment of the cheque, as it had been stolen. Moreover, the notice was issued by the complainant on 13.10.1995 which was received by the petitioner on 14.10.1995. There was no reply for this notice. </p><p>10. Under these circumstances, it is not understandable as to why documents relating to the theft complaint given against one Indira would be relevant to the issue to be decided in this case. When the Court feels that the documents sought to be summoned are unnecessary, the Court is entitled to reject the request of the petitioner. Therefore, in my view, there is no infirmity in the impugned order and as such, the revision is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Consequently, Crl.M.P. No. 2241 of 1997 is also dismissed. The trial Court is directed to go on with the trial as expeditiously as possible. <p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1999(2)CTC298', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'V. Balakrishnan', 'sub' => 'Banking;Criminal ', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'mrs-saraswathi-vs-v-balakrishnan' $args = array( (int) 0 => '785422', (int) 1 => 'mrs-saraswathi-vs-v-balakrishnan' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/785422/mrs-saraswathi-vs-v-balakrishnan' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => 'Acts/Rules/Orders:', (int) 1 => '<p>Negiotable Instrument Act, 1881 -- Section 138;Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -- Section 91', (int) 2 => '<p>Judgment Pronounced by M. Karpagavinayagam, J.', (int) 3 => '<p>1. This revision is directed against the order dismissing the application filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 91 Cr.P.C. to call for certain documents from the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Crime General, Egmore, registered in No. 1873/ACC(G) Camp/ 2.8.1995. ', (int) 4 => '<p>2. The complainant, the respondent herein filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the year 1995. Before the trial commenced, the petitioner filed an application on 5.11.1996 stating that the petitioner never borrowed any money from the complainant, that one Indira took away the cheque from the accused and the said Indira misused the same without the knowledge of the accused and that therefore, she filed a complaint to the police on 2.8.1995 and that during the said enquiry by the police, some of the persons were summoned and they were examined and that those documents are essential documents to disprove the case of the complainant and so, those documents have to be summoned. ', (int) 5 => '<p>3. This application was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the request of the accused to summon the documents is even before the commencement of the prosecution evidence and that despite the alleged complaint at 2.8.1995, there is no effort taken by the petitioner/accused to stop the payment of the cheque through intimation to the Bank immediately after the alleged theft. ', (int) 6 => '<p>4. While attacking the impugned order, Mr. Veerasekaran, the counsel for the petitioner, would submit that with reference 'to the same cheque the petitioner has given a complaint against one Indira on 2.8.1995 itself regarding the theft of the said cheque and some statements were recorded in the said case and if those documents are produced before the Court, it would enable the accused to disprove the complainant's case. ', (int) 7 => '<p>5. Heard the counsel for both. ', (int) 8 => '<p>6. I am not inclined to agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Section 91 Cr.P.C. confers powers on the Court to order for production of any document, if it is necessary or desirable for the purpose of trial. ', (int) 9 => '<p>7. In this case, the defence of the petitioner is that the cheque in question was stolen by one Indira and regarding this a complaint was filed on 2.8.1995. Admittedly, there is no allegation in the said complaint that the respondent committed theft of the cheque in question. ', (int) 10 => '<p>8. According to the complaint, the cheque issued by the petitioner in favour of the respondent was presented in the Bank on 4.10.1995 and the same was dishonoured. Thereafter, the complainant sent a statutory notice on 13.10.1995. ', (int) 11 => '<p>9. As pointed out by the learned Magistrate, the complaint has been lodged with regard to the stolen cheque on 2.8.1995 itself, but even then there was no intimation by the accused to the Bank to stop the payment of the cheque, as it had been stolen. Moreover, the notice was issued by the complainant on 13.10.1995 which was received by the petitioner on 14.10.1995. There was no reply for this notice. ', (int) 12 => '<p>10. Under these circumstances, it is not understandable as to why documents relating to the theft complaint given against one Indira would be relevant to the issue to be decided in this case. When the Court feels that the documents sought to be summoned are unnecessary, the Court is entitled to reject the request of the petitioner. Therefore, in my view, there is no infirmity in the impugned order and as such, the revision is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Consequently, Crl.M.P. No. 2241 of 1997 is also dismissed. The trial Court is directed to go on with the trial as expeditiously as possible. <p>', (int) 13 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 14 $i = (int) 10include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
8. According to the complaint, the cheque issued by the petitioner in favour of the respondent was presented in the Bank on 4.10.1995 and the same was dishonoured. Thereafter, the complainant sent a statutory notice on 13.10.1995.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Mrs Saraswathi Vs V Balakrishnan - Citation 785422 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '785422', 'acts' => 'Negiotable Instrument Act, 1881 -- Sections 138; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> -- Sections 91', 'appealno' => 'Crl. R.C. No. 384 of 1997 and Crl. M.P. No. 2241 of 1997', 'appellant' => 'Mrs. Saraswathi', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Mrs. Saraswathi Vs. V. Balakrishnan', 'casenote' => ' - ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' Mr. D. Veerasekaran, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Mr. K.S. Padmanabhan, Adv.', 'court' => 'Chennai', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1999-01-25', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'M. Karpagavinayagam, J.', 'judgement' => 'Acts/Rules/Orders:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Negiotable Instrument Act, 1881 -- Section 138;Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -- Section 91</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Judgment Pronounced by M. Karpagavinayagam, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This revision is directed against the order dismissing the application filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 91 Cr.P.C. to call for certain documents from the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Crime General, Egmore, registered in No. 1873/ACC(G) Camp/ 2.8.1995. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The complainant, the respondent herein filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the year 1995. Before the trial commenced, the petitioner filed an application on 5.11.1996 stating that the petitioner never borrowed any money from the complainant, that one Indira took away the cheque from the accused and the said Indira misused the same without the knowledge of the accused and that therefore, she filed a complaint to the police on 2.8.1995 and that during the said enquiry by the police, some of the persons were summoned and they were examined and that those documents are essential documents to disprove the case of the complainant and so, those documents have to be summoned. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. This application was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the request of the accused to summon the documents is even before the commencement of the prosecution evidence and that despite the alleged complaint at 2.8.1995, there is no effort taken by the petitioner/accused to stop the payment of the cheque through intimation to the Bank immediately after the alleged theft. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. While attacking the impugned order, Mr. Veerasekaran, the counsel for the petitioner, would submit that with reference 'to the same cheque the petitioner has given a complaint against one Indira on 2.8.1995 itself regarding the theft of the said cheque and some statements were recorded in the said case and if those documents are produced before the Court, it would enable the accused to disprove the complainant's case. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Heard the counsel for both. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. I am not inclined to agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Section 91 Cr.P.C. confers powers on the Court to order for production of any document, if it is necessary or desirable for the purpose of trial. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In this case, the defence of the petitioner is that the cheque in question was stolen by one Indira and regarding this a complaint was filed on 2.8.1995. Admittedly, there is no allegation in the said complaint that the respondent committed theft of the cheque in question. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. According to the complaint, the cheque issued by the petitioner in favour of the respondent was presented in the Bank on 4.10.1995 and the same was dishonoured. Thereafter, the complainant sent a statutory notice on 13.10.1995. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. As pointed out by the learned Magistrate, the complaint has been lodged with regard to the stolen cheque on 2.8.1995 itself, but even then there was no intimation by the accused to the Bank to stop the payment of the cheque, as it had been stolen. Moreover, the notice was issued by the complainant on 13.10.1995 which was received by the petitioner on 14.10.1995. There was no reply for this notice. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Under these circumstances, it is not understandable as to why documents relating to the theft complaint given against one Indira would be relevant to the issue to be decided in this case. When the Court feels that the documents sought to be summoned are unnecessary, the Court is entitled to reject the request of the petitioner. Therefore, in my view, there is no infirmity in the impugned order and as such, the revision is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Consequently, Crl.M.P. No. 2241 of 1997 is also dismissed. The trial Court is directed to go on with the trial as expeditiously as possible. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1999(2)CTC298', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'V. Balakrishnan', 'sub' => 'Banking;Criminal ', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'mrs-saraswathi-vs-v-balakrishnan', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '785422', (int) 1 => 'mrs-saraswathi-vs-v-balakrishnan' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Mrs Saraswathi Vs V Balakrishnan - Citation 785422 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '785422', 'acts' => 'Negiotable Instrument Act, 1881 -- Sections 138; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> -- Sections 91', 'appealno' => 'Crl. R.C. No. 384 of 1997 and Crl. M.P. No. 2241 of 1997', 'appellant' => 'Mrs. Saraswathi', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Mrs. Saraswathi Vs. V. Balakrishnan', 'casenote' => ' - ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' Mr. D. Veerasekaran, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Mr. K.S. Padmanabhan, Adv.', 'court' => 'Chennai', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1999-01-25', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'M. Karpagavinayagam, J.', 'judgement' => 'Acts/Rules/Orders:</p><p>Negiotable Instrument Act, 1881 -- Section 138;Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -- Section 91</p><p>Judgment Pronounced by M. Karpagavinayagam, J.</p><p>1. This revision is directed against the order dismissing the application filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 91 Cr.P.C. to call for certain documents from the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Crime General, Egmore, registered in No. 1873/ACC(G) Camp/ 2.8.1995. </p><p>2. The complainant, the respondent herein filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the year 1995. Before the trial commenced, the petitioner filed an application on 5.11.1996 stating that the petitioner never borrowed any money from the complainant, that one Indira took away the cheque from the accused and the said Indira misused the same without the knowledge of the accused and that therefore, she filed a complaint to the police on 2.8.1995 and that during the said enquiry by the police, some of the persons were summoned and they were examined and that those documents are essential documents to disprove the case of the complainant and so, those documents have to be summoned. </p><p>3. This application was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the request of the accused to summon the documents is even before the commencement of the prosecution evidence and that despite the alleged complaint at 2.8.1995, there is no effort taken by the petitioner/accused to stop the payment of the cheque through intimation to the Bank immediately after the alleged theft. </p><p>4. While attacking the impugned order, Mr. Veerasekaran, the counsel for the petitioner, would submit that with reference 'to the same cheque the petitioner has given a complaint against one Indira on 2.8.1995 itself regarding the theft of the said cheque and some statements were recorded in the said case and if those documents are produced before the Court, it would enable the accused to disprove the complainant's case. </p><p>5. Heard the counsel for both. </p><p>6. I am not inclined to agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Section 91 Cr.P.C. confers powers on the Court to order for production of any document, if it is necessary or desirable for the purpose of trial. </p><p>7. In this case, the defence of the petitioner is that the cheque in question was stolen by one Indira and regarding this a complaint was filed on 2.8.1995. Admittedly, there is no allegation in the said complaint that the respondent committed theft of the cheque in question. </p><p>8. According to the complaint, the cheque issued by the petitioner in favour of the respondent was presented in the Bank on 4.10.1995 and the same was dishonoured. Thereafter, the complainant sent a statutory notice on 13.10.1995. </p><p>9. As pointed out by the learned Magistrate, the complaint has been lodged with regard to the stolen cheque on 2.8.1995 itself, but even then there was no intimation by the accused to the Bank to stop the payment of the cheque, as it had been stolen. Moreover, the notice was issued by the complainant on 13.10.1995 which was received by the petitioner on 14.10.1995. There was no reply for this notice. </p><p>10. Under these circumstances, it is not understandable as to why documents relating to the theft complaint given against one Indira would be relevant to the issue to be decided in this case. When the Court feels that the documents sought to be summoned are unnecessary, the Court is entitled to reject the request of the petitioner. Therefore, in my view, there is no infirmity in the impugned order and as such, the revision is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Consequently, Crl.M.P. No. 2241 of 1997 is also dismissed. The trial Court is directed to go on with the trial as expeditiously as possible. <p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1999(2)CTC298', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'V. Balakrishnan', 'sub' => 'Banking;Criminal ', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'mrs-saraswathi-vs-v-balakrishnan' $args = array( (int) 0 => '785422', (int) 1 => 'mrs-saraswathi-vs-v-balakrishnan' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/785422/mrs-saraswathi-vs-v-balakrishnan' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => 'Acts/Rules/Orders:', (int) 1 => '<p>Negiotable Instrument Act, 1881 -- Section 138;Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -- Section 91', (int) 2 => '<p>Judgment Pronounced by M. Karpagavinayagam, J.', (int) 3 => '<p>1. This revision is directed against the order dismissing the application filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 91 Cr.P.C. to call for certain documents from the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Crime General, Egmore, registered in No. 1873/ACC(G) Camp/ 2.8.1995. ', (int) 4 => '<p>2. The complainant, the respondent herein filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the year 1995. Before the trial commenced, the petitioner filed an application on 5.11.1996 stating that the petitioner never borrowed any money from the complainant, that one Indira took away the cheque from the accused and the said Indira misused the same without the knowledge of the accused and that therefore, she filed a complaint to the police on 2.8.1995 and that during the said enquiry by the police, some of the persons were summoned and they were examined and that those documents are essential documents to disprove the case of the complainant and so, those documents have to be summoned. ', (int) 5 => '<p>3. This application was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the request of the accused to summon the documents is even before the commencement of the prosecution evidence and that despite the alleged complaint at 2.8.1995, there is no effort taken by the petitioner/accused to stop the payment of the cheque through intimation to the Bank immediately after the alleged theft. ', (int) 6 => '<p>4. While attacking the impugned order, Mr. Veerasekaran, the counsel for the petitioner, would submit that with reference 'to the same cheque the petitioner has given a complaint against one Indira on 2.8.1995 itself regarding the theft of the said cheque and some statements were recorded in the said case and if those documents are produced before the Court, it would enable the accused to disprove the complainant's case. ', (int) 7 => '<p>5. Heard the counsel for both. ', (int) 8 => '<p>6. I am not inclined to agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Section 91 Cr.P.C. confers powers on the Court to order for production of any document, if it is necessary or desirable for the purpose of trial. ', (int) 9 => '<p>7. In this case, the defence of the petitioner is that the cheque in question was stolen by one Indira and regarding this a complaint was filed on 2.8.1995. Admittedly, there is no allegation in the said complaint that the respondent committed theft of the cheque in question. ', (int) 10 => '<p>8. According to the complaint, the cheque issued by the petitioner in favour of the respondent was presented in the Bank on 4.10.1995 and the same was dishonoured. Thereafter, the complainant sent a statutory notice on 13.10.1995. ', (int) 11 => '<p>9. As pointed out by the learned Magistrate, the complaint has been lodged with regard to the stolen cheque on 2.8.1995 itself, but even then there was no intimation by the accused to the Bank to stop the payment of the cheque, as it had been stolen. Moreover, the notice was issued by the complainant on 13.10.1995 which was received by the petitioner on 14.10.1995. There was no reply for this notice. ', (int) 12 => '<p>10. Under these circumstances, it is not understandable as to why documents relating to the theft complaint given against one Indira would be relevant to the issue to be decided in this case. When the Court feels that the documents sought to be summoned are unnecessary, the Court is entitled to reject the request of the petitioner. Therefore, in my view, there is no infirmity in the impugned order and as such, the revision is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Consequently, Crl.M.P. No. 2241 of 1997 is also dismissed. The trial Court is directed to go on with the trial as expeditiously as possible. <p>', (int) 13 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 14 $i = (int) 11include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
9. As pointed out by the learned Magistrate, the complaint has been lodged with regard to the stolen cheque on 2.8.1995 itself, but even then there was no intimation by the accused to the Bank to stop the payment of the cheque, as it had been stolen. Moreover, the notice was issued by the complainant on 13.10.1995 which was received by the petitioner on 14.10.1995. There was no reply for this notice.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Mrs Saraswathi Vs V Balakrishnan - Citation 785422 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '785422', 'acts' => 'Negiotable Instrument Act, 1881 -- Sections 138; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> -- Sections 91', 'appealno' => 'Crl. R.C. No. 384 of 1997 and Crl. M.P. No. 2241 of 1997', 'appellant' => 'Mrs. Saraswathi', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Mrs. Saraswathi Vs. V. Balakrishnan', 'casenote' => ' - ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' Mr. D. Veerasekaran, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Mr. K.S. Padmanabhan, Adv.', 'court' => 'Chennai', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1999-01-25', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'M. Karpagavinayagam, J.', 'judgement' => 'Acts/Rules/Orders:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Negiotable Instrument Act, 1881 -- Section 138;Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -- Section 91</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Judgment Pronounced by M. Karpagavinayagam, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This revision is directed against the order dismissing the application filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 91 Cr.P.C. to call for certain documents from the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Crime General, Egmore, registered in No. 1873/ACC(G) Camp/ 2.8.1995. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The complainant, the respondent herein filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the year 1995. Before the trial commenced, the petitioner filed an application on 5.11.1996 stating that the petitioner never borrowed any money from the complainant, that one Indira took away the cheque from the accused and the said Indira misused the same without the knowledge of the accused and that therefore, she filed a complaint to the police on 2.8.1995 and that during the said enquiry by the police, some of the persons were summoned and they were examined and that those documents are essential documents to disprove the case of the complainant and so, those documents have to be summoned. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. This application was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the request of the accused to summon the documents is even before the commencement of the prosecution evidence and that despite the alleged complaint at 2.8.1995, there is no effort taken by the petitioner/accused to stop the payment of the cheque through intimation to the Bank immediately after the alleged theft. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. While attacking the impugned order, Mr. Veerasekaran, the counsel for the petitioner, would submit that with reference 'to the same cheque the petitioner has given a complaint against one Indira on 2.8.1995 itself regarding the theft of the said cheque and some statements were recorded in the said case and if those documents are produced before the Court, it would enable the accused to disprove the complainant's case. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Heard the counsel for both. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. I am not inclined to agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Section 91 Cr.P.C. confers powers on the Court to order for production of any document, if it is necessary or desirable for the purpose of trial. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In this case, the defence of the petitioner is that the cheque in question was stolen by one Indira and regarding this a complaint was filed on 2.8.1995. Admittedly, there is no allegation in the said complaint that the respondent committed theft of the cheque in question. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. According to the complaint, the cheque issued by the petitioner in favour of the respondent was presented in the Bank on 4.10.1995 and the same was dishonoured. Thereafter, the complainant sent a statutory notice on 13.10.1995. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. As pointed out by the learned Magistrate, the complaint has been lodged with regard to the stolen cheque on 2.8.1995 itself, but even then there was no intimation by the accused to the Bank to stop the payment of the cheque, as it had been stolen. Moreover, the notice was issued by the complainant on 13.10.1995 which was received by the petitioner on 14.10.1995. There was no reply for this notice. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Under these circumstances, it is not understandable as to why documents relating to the theft complaint given against one Indira would be relevant to the issue to be decided in this case. When the Court feels that the documents sought to be summoned are unnecessary, the Court is entitled to reject the request of the petitioner. Therefore, in my view, there is no infirmity in the impugned order and as such, the revision is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Consequently, Crl.M.P. No. 2241 of 1997 is also dismissed. The trial Court is directed to go on with the trial as expeditiously as possible. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1999(2)CTC298', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'V. Balakrishnan', 'sub' => 'Banking;Criminal ', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'mrs-saraswathi-vs-v-balakrishnan', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '785422', (int) 1 => 'mrs-saraswathi-vs-v-balakrishnan' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Mrs Saraswathi Vs V Balakrishnan - Citation 785422 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '785422', 'acts' => 'Negiotable Instrument Act, 1881 -- Sections 138; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> -- Sections 91', 'appealno' => 'Crl. R.C. No. 384 of 1997 and Crl. M.P. No. 2241 of 1997', 'appellant' => 'Mrs. Saraswathi', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Mrs. Saraswathi Vs. V. Balakrishnan', 'casenote' => ' - ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' Mr. D. Veerasekaran, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Mr. K.S. Padmanabhan, Adv.', 'court' => 'Chennai', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1999-01-25', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'M. Karpagavinayagam, J.', 'judgement' => 'Acts/Rules/Orders:</p><p>Negiotable Instrument Act, 1881 -- Section 138;Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -- Section 91</p><p>Judgment Pronounced by M. Karpagavinayagam, J.</p><p>1. This revision is directed against the order dismissing the application filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 91 Cr.P.C. to call for certain documents from the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Crime General, Egmore, registered in No. 1873/ACC(G) Camp/ 2.8.1995. </p><p>2. The complainant, the respondent herein filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the year 1995. Before the trial commenced, the petitioner filed an application on 5.11.1996 stating that the petitioner never borrowed any money from the complainant, that one Indira took away the cheque from the accused and the said Indira misused the same without the knowledge of the accused and that therefore, she filed a complaint to the police on 2.8.1995 and that during the said enquiry by the police, some of the persons were summoned and they were examined and that those documents are essential documents to disprove the case of the complainant and so, those documents have to be summoned. </p><p>3. This application was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the request of the accused to summon the documents is even before the commencement of the prosecution evidence and that despite the alleged complaint at 2.8.1995, there is no effort taken by the petitioner/accused to stop the payment of the cheque through intimation to the Bank immediately after the alleged theft. </p><p>4. While attacking the impugned order, Mr. Veerasekaran, the counsel for the petitioner, would submit that with reference 'to the same cheque the petitioner has given a complaint against one Indira on 2.8.1995 itself regarding the theft of the said cheque and some statements were recorded in the said case and if those documents are produced before the Court, it would enable the accused to disprove the complainant's case. </p><p>5. Heard the counsel for both. </p><p>6. I am not inclined to agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Section 91 Cr.P.C. confers powers on the Court to order for production of any document, if it is necessary or desirable for the purpose of trial. </p><p>7. In this case, the defence of the petitioner is that the cheque in question was stolen by one Indira and regarding this a complaint was filed on 2.8.1995. Admittedly, there is no allegation in the said complaint that the respondent committed theft of the cheque in question. </p><p>8. According to the complaint, the cheque issued by the petitioner in favour of the respondent was presented in the Bank on 4.10.1995 and the same was dishonoured. Thereafter, the complainant sent a statutory notice on 13.10.1995. </p><p>9. As pointed out by the learned Magistrate, the complaint has been lodged with regard to the stolen cheque on 2.8.1995 itself, but even then there was no intimation by the accused to the Bank to stop the payment of the cheque, as it had been stolen. Moreover, the notice was issued by the complainant on 13.10.1995 which was received by the petitioner on 14.10.1995. There was no reply for this notice. </p><p>10. Under these circumstances, it is not understandable as to why documents relating to the theft complaint given against one Indira would be relevant to the issue to be decided in this case. When the Court feels that the documents sought to be summoned are unnecessary, the Court is entitled to reject the request of the petitioner. Therefore, in my view, there is no infirmity in the impugned order and as such, the revision is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Consequently, Crl.M.P. No. 2241 of 1997 is also dismissed. The trial Court is directed to go on with the trial as expeditiously as possible. <p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1999(2)CTC298', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'V. Balakrishnan', 'sub' => 'Banking;Criminal ', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'mrs-saraswathi-vs-v-balakrishnan' $args = array( (int) 0 => '785422', (int) 1 => 'mrs-saraswathi-vs-v-balakrishnan' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/785422/mrs-saraswathi-vs-v-balakrishnan' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => 'Acts/Rules/Orders:', (int) 1 => '<p>Negiotable Instrument Act, 1881 -- Section 138;Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -- Section 91', (int) 2 => '<p>Judgment Pronounced by M. Karpagavinayagam, J.', (int) 3 => '<p>1. This revision is directed against the order dismissing the application filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 91 Cr.P.C. to call for certain documents from the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Crime General, Egmore, registered in No. 1873/ACC(G) Camp/ 2.8.1995. ', (int) 4 => '<p>2. The complainant, the respondent herein filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the year 1995. Before the trial commenced, the petitioner filed an application on 5.11.1996 stating that the petitioner never borrowed any money from the complainant, that one Indira took away the cheque from the accused and the said Indira misused the same without the knowledge of the accused and that therefore, she filed a complaint to the police on 2.8.1995 and that during the said enquiry by the police, some of the persons were summoned and they were examined and that those documents are essential documents to disprove the case of the complainant and so, those documents have to be summoned. ', (int) 5 => '<p>3. This application was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the request of the accused to summon the documents is even before the commencement of the prosecution evidence and that despite the alleged complaint at 2.8.1995, there is no effort taken by the petitioner/accused to stop the payment of the cheque through intimation to the Bank immediately after the alleged theft. ', (int) 6 => '<p>4. While attacking the impugned order, Mr. Veerasekaran, the counsel for the petitioner, would submit that with reference 'to the same cheque the petitioner has given a complaint against one Indira on 2.8.1995 itself regarding the theft of the said cheque and some statements were recorded in the said case and if those documents are produced before the Court, it would enable the accused to disprove the complainant's case. ', (int) 7 => '<p>5. Heard the counsel for both. ', (int) 8 => '<p>6. I am not inclined to agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Section 91 Cr.P.C. confers powers on the Court to order for production of any document, if it is necessary or desirable for the purpose of trial. ', (int) 9 => '<p>7. In this case, the defence of the petitioner is that the cheque in question was stolen by one Indira and regarding this a complaint was filed on 2.8.1995. Admittedly, there is no allegation in the said complaint that the respondent committed theft of the cheque in question. ', (int) 10 => '<p>8. According to the complaint, the cheque issued by the petitioner in favour of the respondent was presented in the Bank on 4.10.1995 and the same was dishonoured. Thereafter, the complainant sent a statutory notice on 13.10.1995. ', (int) 11 => '<p>9. As pointed out by the learned Magistrate, the complaint has been lodged with regard to the stolen cheque on 2.8.1995 itself, but even then there was no intimation by the accused to the Bank to stop the payment of the cheque, as it had been stolen. Moreover, the notice was issued by the complainant on 13.10.1995 which was received by the petitioner on 14.10.1995. There was no reply for this notice. ', (int) 12 => '<p>10. Under these circumstances, it is not understandable as to why documents relating to the theft complaint given against one Indira would be relevant to the issue to be decided in this case. When the Court feels that the documents sought to be summoned are unnecessary, the Court is entitled to reject the request of the petitioner. Therefore, in my view, there is no infirmity in the impugned order and as such, the revision is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Consequently, Crl.M.P. No. 2241 of 1997 is also dismissed. The trial Court is directed to go on with the trial as expeditiously as possible. <p>', (int) 13 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 14 $i = (int) 12include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
10. Under these circumstances, it is not understandable as to why documents relating to the theft complaint given against one Indira would be relevant to the issue to be decided in this case. When the Court feels that the documents sought to be summoned are unnecessary, the Court is entitled to reject the request of the petitioner. Therefore, in my view, there is no infirmity in the impugned order and as such, the revision is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Consequently, Crl.M.P. No. 2241 of 1997 is also dismissed. The trial Court is directed to go on with the trial as expeditiously as possible.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Mrs Saraswathi Vs V Balakrishnan - Citation 785422 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '785422', 'acts' => 'Negiotable Instrument Act, 1881 -- Sections 138; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> -- Sections 91', 'appealno' => 'Crl. R.C. No. 384 of 1997 and Crl. M.P. No. 2241 of 1997', 'appellant' => 'Mrs. Saraswathi', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Mrs. Saraswathi Vs. V. Balakrishnan', 'casenote' => ' - ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' Mr. D. Veerasekaran, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Mr. K.S. Padmanabhan, Adv.', 'court' => 'Chennai', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1999-01-25', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'M. Karpagavinayagam, J.', 'judgement' => 'Acts/Rules/Orders:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Negiotable Instrument Act, 1881 -- Section 138;Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -- Section 91</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Judgment Pronounced by M. Karpagavinayagam, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This revision is directed against the order dismissing the application filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 91 Cr.P.C. to call for certain documents from the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Crime General, Egmore, registered in No. 1873/ACC(G) Camp/ 2.8.1995. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The complainant, the respondent herein filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the year 1995. Before the trial commenced, the petitioner filed an application on 5.11.1996 stating that the petitioner never borrowed any money from the complainant, that one Indira took away the cheque from the accused and the said Indira misused the same without the knowledge of the accused and that therefore, she filed a complaint to the police on 2.8.1995 and that during the said enquiry by the police, some of the persons were summoned and they were examined and that those documents are essential documents to disprove the case of the complainant and so, those documents have to be summoned. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. This application was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the request of the accused to summon the documents is even before the commencement of the prosecution evidence and that despite the alleged complaint at 2.8.1995, there is no effort taken by the petitioner/accused to stop the payment of the cheque through intimation to the Bank immediately after the alleged theft. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. While attacking the impugned order, Mr. Veerasekaran, the counsel for the petitioner, would submit that with reference 'to the same cheque the petitioner has given a complaint against one Indira on 2.8.1995 itself regarding the theft of the said cheque and some statements were recorded in the said case and if those documents are produced before the Court, it would enable the accused to disprove the complainant's case. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Heard the counsel for both. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. I am not inclined to agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Section 91 Cr.P.C. confers powers on the Court to order for production of any document, if it is necessary or desirable for the purpose of trial. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In this case, the defence of the petitioner is that the cheque in question was stolen by one Indira and regarding this a complaint was filed on 2.8.1995. Admittedly, there is no allegation in the said complaint that the respondent committed theft of the cheque in question. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. According to the complaint, the cheque issued by the petitioner in favour of the respondent was presented in the Bank on 4.10.1995 and the same was dishonoured. Thereafter, the complainant sent a statutory notice on 13.10.1995. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. As pointed out by the learned Magistrate, the complaint has been lodged with regard to the stolen cheque on 2.8.1995 itself, but even then there was no intimation by the accused to the Bank to stop the payment of the cheque, as it had been stolen. Moreover, the notice was issued by the complainant on 13.10.1995 which was received by the petitioner on 14.10.1995. There was no reply for this notice. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Under these circumstances, it is not understandable as to why documents relating to the theft complaint given against one Indira would be relevant to the issue to be decided in this case. When the Court feels that the documents sought to be summoned are unnecessary, the Court is entitled to reject the request of the petitioner. Therefore, in my view, there is no infirmity in the impugned order and as such, the revision is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Consequently, Crl.M.P. No. 2241 of 1997 is also dismissed. The trial Court is directed to go on with the trial as expeditiously as possible. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1999(2)CTC298', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'V. Balakrishnan', 'sub' => 'Banking;Criminal ', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'mrs-saraswathi-vs-v-balakrishnan', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '785422', (int) 1 => 'mrs-saraswathi-vs-v-balakrishnan' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Mrs Saraswathi Vs V Balakrishnan - Citation 785422 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '785422', 'acts' => 'Negiotable Instrument Act, 1881 -- Sections 138; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> -- Sections 91', 'appealno' => 'Crl. R.C. No. 384 of 1997 and Crl. M.P. No. 2241 of 1997', 'appellant' => 'Mrs. Saraswathi', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Mrs. Saraswathi Vs. V. Balakrishnan', 'casenote' => ' - ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' Mr. D. Veerasekaran, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Mr. K.S. Padmanabhan, Adv.', 'court' => 'Chennai', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1999-01-25', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'M. Karpagavinayagam, J.', 'judgement' => 'Acts/Rules/Orders:</p><p>Negiotable Instrument Act, 1881 -- Section 138;Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -- Section 91</p><p>Judgment Pronounced by M. Karpagavinayagam, J.</p><p>1. This revision is directed against the order dismissing the application filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 91 Cr.P.C. to call for certain documents from the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Crime General, Egmore, registered in No. 1873/ACC(G) Camp/ 2.8.1995. </p><p>2. The complainant, the respondent herein filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the year 1995. Before the trial commenced, the petitioner filed an application on 5.11.1996 stating that the petitioner never borrowed any money from the complainant, that one Indira took away the cheque from the accused and the said Indira misused the same without the knowledge of the accused and that therefore, she filed a complaint to the police on 2.8.1995 and that during the said enquiry by the police, some of the persons were summoned and they were examined and that those documents are essential documents to disprove the case of the complainant and so, those documents have to be summoned. </p><p>3. This application was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the request of the accused to summon the documents is even before the commencement of the prosecution evidence and that despite the alleged complaint at 2.8.1995, there is no effort taken by the petitioner/accused to stop the payment of the cheque through intimation to the Bank immediately after the alleged theft. </p><p>4. While attacking the impugned order, Mr. Veerasekaran, the counsel for the petitioner, would submit that with reference 'to the same cheque the petitioner has given a complaint against one Indira on 2.8.1995 itself regarding the theft of the said cheque and some statements were recorded in the said case and if those documents are produced before the Court, it would enable the accused to disprove the complainant's case. </p><p>5. Heard the counsel for both. </p><p>6. I am not inclined to agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Section 91 Cr.P.C. confers powers on the Court to order for production of any document, if it is necessary or desirable for the purpose of trial. </p><p>7. In this case, the defence of the petitioner is that the cheque in question was stolen by one Indira and regarding this a complaint was filed on 2.8.1995. Admittedly, there is no allegation in the said complaint that the respondent committed theft of the cheque in question. </p><p>8. According to the complaint, the cheque issued by the petitioner in favour of the respondent was presented in the Bank on 4.10.1995 and the same was dishonoured. Thereafter, the complainant sent a statutory notice on 13.10.1995. </p><p>9. As pointed out by the learned Magistrate, the complaint has been lodged with regard to the stolen cheque on 2.8.1995 itself, but even then there was no intimation by the accused to the Bank to stop the payment of the cheque, as it had been stolen. Moreover, the notice was issued by the complainant on 13.10.1995 which was received by the petitioner on 14.10.1995. There was no reply for this notice. </p><p>10. Under these circumstances, it is not understandable as to why documents relating to the theft complaint given against one Indira would be relevant to the issue to be decided in this case. When the Court feels that the documents sought to be summoned are unnecessary, the Court is entitled to reject the request of the petitioner. Therefore, in my view, there is no infirmity in the impugned order and as such, the revision is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Consequently, Crl.M.P. No. 2241 of 1997 is also dismissed. The trial Court is directed to go on with the trial as expeditiously as possible. <p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1999(2)CTC298', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'V. Balakrishnan', 'sub' => 'Banking;Criminal ', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'mrs-saraswathi-vs-v-balakrishnan' $args = array( (int) 0 => '785422', (int) 1 => 'mrs-saraswathi-vs-v-balakrishnan' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/785422/mrs-saraswathi-vs-v-balakrishnan' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => 'Acts/Rules/Orders:', (int) 1 => '<p>Negiotable Instrument Act, 1881 -- Section 138;Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -- Section 91', (int) 2 => '<p>Judgment Pronounced by M. Karpagavinayagam, J.', (int) 3 => '<p>1. This revision is directed against the order dismissing the application filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 91 Cr.P.C. to call for certain documents from the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Crime General, Egmore, registered in No. 1873/ACC(G) Camp/ 2.8.1995. ', (int) 4 => '<p>2. The complainant, the respondent herein filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the year 1995. Before the trial commenced, the petitioner filed an application on 5.11.1996 stating that the petitioner never borrowed any money from the complainant, that one Indira took away the cheque from the accused and the said Indira misused the same without the knowledge of the accused and that therefore, she filed a complaint to the police on 2.8.1995 and that during the said enquiry by the police, some of the persons were summoned and they were examined and that those documents are essential documents to disprove the case of the complainant and so, those documents have to be summoned. ', (int) 5 => '<p>3. This application was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the request of the accused to summon the documents is even before the commencement of the prosecution evidence and that despite the alleged complaint at 2.8.1995, there is no effort taken by the petitioner/accused to stop the payment of the cheque through intimation to the Bank immediately after the alleged theft. ', (int) 6 => '<p>4. While attacking the impugned order, Mr. Veerasekaran, the counsel for the petitioner, would submit that with reference 'to the same cheque the petitioner has given a complaint against one Indira on 2.8.1995 itself regarding the theft of the said cheque and some statements were recorded in the said case and if those documents are produced before the Court, it would enable the accused to disprove the complainant's case. ', (int) 7 => '<p>5. Heard the counsel for both. ', (int) 8 => '<p>6. I am not inclined to agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Section 91 Cr.P.C. confers powers on the Court to order for production of any document, if it is necessary or desirable for the purpose of trial. ', (int) 9 => '<p>7. In this case, the defence of the petitioner is that the cheque in question was stolen by one Indira and regarding this a complaint was filed on 2.8.1995. Admittedly, there is no allegation in the said complaint that the respondent committed theft of the cheque in question. ', (int) 10 => '<p>8. According to the complaint, the cheque issued by the petitioner in favour of the respondent was presented in the Bank on 4.10.1995 and the same was dishonoured. Thereafter, the complainant sent a statutory notice on 13.10.1995. ', (int) 11 => '<p>9. As pointed out by the learned Magistrate, the complaint has been lodged with regard to the stolen cheque on 2.8.1995 itself, but even then there was no intimation by the accused to the Bank to stop the payment of the cheque, as it had been stolen. Moreover, the notice was issued by the complainant on 13.10.1995 which was received by the petitioner on 14.10.1995. There was no reply for this notice. ', (int) 12 => '<p>10. Under these circumstances, it is not understandable as to why documents relating to the theft complaint given against one Indira would be relevant to the issue to be decided in this case. When the Court feels that the documents sought to be summoned are unnecessary, the Court is entitled to reject the request of the petitioner. Therefore, in my view, there is no infirmity in the impugned order and as such, the revision is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Consequently, Crl.M.P. No. 2241 of 1997 is also dismissed. The trial Court is directed to go on with the trial as expeditiously as possible. <p>', (int) 13 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 14 $i = (int) 13include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109