Semantic Analysis by spaCy
Mrs. Saraswathi Vs. V. Balakrishnan
Decided On : Jan-25-1999
Court : Chennai
Notice (8): Undefined index: topics [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36]Code Context$shops2 = $shops['topics'];$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Mrs. Saraswathi Vs. V. Balakrishnan Semantic Analysis', 'shops' => array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Negiotable Instrument Act', (int) 1 => 'Section 91', (int) 2 => 'Section 138', (int) 3 => 'the Negotiable Instruments Act', (int) 4 => 'Section 91' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '1881', (int) 1 => '1973', (int) 2 => 'the year 1995', (int) 3 => '2.8.1995', (int) 4 => '2.8.1995', (int) 5 => '13.10.1995. 9', (int) 6 => '13.10.1995', (int) 7 => '14.10.1995', (int) 8 => '1997' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'M. Karpagavinayagam', (int) 1 => 'Indira', (int) 2 => 'Veerasekaran' ), 'NORP' => array( (int) 0 => 'J.1', (int) 1 => 'Indira', (int) 2 => 'Indira', (int) 3 => 'Indira', (int) 4 => 'Indira' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'P.C.', (int) 1 => 'P.C.' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'Crime General,', (int) 1 => 'Court', (int) 2 => 'Bank', (int) 3 => 'Court', (int) 4 => 'Court', (int) 5 => 'the Bank on 4.10.1995', (int) 6 => 'Magistrate', (int) 7 => 'Bank', (int) 8 => 'Court', (int) 9 => 'Court', (int) 10 => 'Crl', (int) 11 => 'Court' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '2.8.1995', (int) 1 => '2', (int) 2 => '5.11.1996', (int) 3 => 'one', (int) 4 => '3', (int) 5 => '2.8.1995', (int) 6 => '4.', (int) 7 => 'one', (int) 8 => '5', (int) 9 => 'one', (int) 10 => '2.8.1995', (int) 11 => '8', (int) 12 => '2.8.1995', (int) 13 => '10', (int) 14 => 'one', (int) 15 => '2241' ) ), '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 ) ), 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '785422' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Mrs. Saraswathi Vs. V. Balakrishnan Semantic Analysis' $shops = array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Negiotable Instrument Act', (int) 1 => 'Section 91', (int) 2 => 'Section 138', (int) 3 => 'the Negotiable Instruments Act', (int) 4 => 'Section 91' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '1881', (int) 1 => '1973', (int) 2 => 'the year 1995', (int) 3 => '2.8.1995', (int) 4 => '2.8.1995', (int) 5 => '13.10.1995. 9', (int) 6 => '13.10.1995', (int) 7 => '14.10.1995', (int) 8 => '1997' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'M. Karpagavinayagam', (int) 1 => 'Indira', (int) 2 => 'Veerasekaran' ), 'NORP' => array( (int) 0 => 'J.1', (int) 1 => 'Indira', (int) 2 => 'Indira', (int) 3 => 'Indira', (int) 4 => 'Indira' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'P.C.', (int) 1 => 'P.C.' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'Crime General,', (int) 1 => 'Court', (int) 2 => 'Bank', (int) 3 => 'Court', (int) 4 => 'Court', (int) 5 => 'the Bank on 4.10.1995', (int) 6 => 'Magistrate', (int) 7 => 'Bank', (int) 8 => 'Court', (int) 9 => 'Court', (int) 10 => 'Crl', (int) 11 => 'Court' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '2.8.1995', (int) 1 => '2', (int) 2 => '5.11.1996', (int) 3 => 'one', (int) 4 => '3', (int) 5 => '2.8.1995', (int) 6 => '4.', (int) 7 => 'one', (int) 8 => '5', (int) 9 => 'one', (int) 10 => '2.8.1995', (int) 11 => '8', (int) 12 => '2.8.1995', (int) 13 => '10', (int) 14 => 'one', (int) 15 => '2241' ) ) $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 ) ) $args = array( (int) 0 => '785422' ) $pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36 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
Warning (2): Invalid argument supplied for foreach() [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39]Code Context//$shops = $shops['entities'];foreach ($shops2 as $key => $val) {$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Mrs. Saraswathi Vs. V. Balakrishnan Semantic Analysis', 'shops' => array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Negiotable Instrument Act', (int) 1 => 'Section 91', (int) 2 => 'Section 138', (int) 3 => 'the Negotiable Instruments Act', (int) 4 => 'Section 91' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '1881', (int) 1 => '1973', (int) 2 => 'the year 1995', (int) 3 => '2.8.1995', (int) 4 => '2.8.1995', (int) 5 => '13.10.1995. 9', (int) 6 => '13.10.1995', (int) 7 => '14.10.1995', (int) 8 => '1997' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'M. Karpagavinayagam', (int) 1 => 'Indira', (int) 2 => 'Veerasekaran' ), 'NORP' => array( (int) 0 => 'J.1', (int) 1 => 'Indira', (int) 2 => 'Indira', (int) 3 => 'Indira', (int) 4 => 'Indira' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'P.C.', (int) 1 => 'P.C.' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'Crime General,', (int) 1 => 'Court', (int) 2 => 'Bank', (int) 3 => 'Court', (int) 4 => 'Court', (int) 5 => 'the Bank on 4.10.1995', (int) 6 => 'Magistrate', (int) 7 => 'Bank', (int) 8 => 'Court', (int) 9 => 'Court', (int) 10 => 'Crl', (int) 11 => 'Court' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '2.8.1995', (int) 1 => '2', (int) 2 => '5.11.1996', (int) 3 => 'one', (int) 4 => '3', (int) 5 => '2.8.1995', (int) 6 => '4.', (int) 7 => 'one', (int) 8 => '5', (int) 9 => 'one', (int) 10 => '2.8.1995', (int) 11 => '8', (int) 12 => '2.8.1995', (int) 13 => '10', (int) 14 => 'one', (int) 15 => '2241' ) ), '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 ) ), 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '785422' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Mrs. Saraswathi Vs. V. Balakrishnan Semantic Analysis' $shops = array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Negiotable Instrument Act', (int) 1 => 'Section 91', (int) 2 => 'Section 138', (int) 3 => 'the Negotiable Instruments Act', (int) 4 => 'Section 91' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '1881', (int) 1 => '1973', (int) 2 => 'the year 1995', (int) 3 => '2.8.1995', (int) 4 => '2.8.1995', (int) 5 => '13.10.1995. 9', (int) 6 => '13.10.1995', (int) 7 => '14.10.1995', (int) 8 => '1997' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'M. Karpagavinayagam', (int) 1 => 'Indira', (int) 2 => 'Veerasekaran' ), 'NORP' => array( (int) 0 => 'J.1', (int) 1 => 'Indira', (int) 2 => 'Indira', (int) 3 => 'Indira', (int) 4 => 'Indira' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'P.C.', (int) 1 => 'P.C.' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'Crime General,', (int) 1 => 'Court', (int) 2 => 'Bank', (int) 3 => 'Court', (int) 4 => 'Court', (int) 5 => 'the Bank on 4.10.1995', (int) 6 => 'Magistrate', (int) 7 => 'Bank', (int) 8 => 'Court', (int) 9 => 'Court', (int) 10 => 'Crl', (int) 11 => 'Court' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '2.8.1995', (int) 1 => '2', (int) 2 => '5.11.1996', (int) 3 => 'one', (int) 4 => '3', (int) 5 => '2.8.1995', (int) 6 => '4.', (int) 7 => 'one', (int) 8 => '5', (int) 9 => 'one', (int) 10 => '2.8.1995', (int) 11 => '8', (int) 12 => '2.8.1995', (int) 13 => '10', (int) 14 => 'one', (int) 15 => '2241' ) ) $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 ) ) $args = array( (int) 0 => '785422' ) $pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/' $shops2 = nullinclude - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39 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
LAW: Negiotable Instrument Act, Section 91, Section 138, the Negotiable Instruments Act, Section 91
DATE: 1881, 1973, the year 1995, 2.8.1995, 2.8.1995, 13.10.1995. 9, 13.10.1995, 14.10.1995, 1997
PERSON: M. Karpagavinayagam, Indira, Veerasekaran
NORP: J.1, Indira, Indira, Indira, Indira
GPE: P.C., P.C.
ORG: Crime General,, Court, Bank, Court, Court, the Bank on 4.10.1995, Magistrate, Bank, Court, Court, Crl, Court
CARDINAL: 2.8.1995, 2, 5.11.1996, one, 3, 2.8.1995, 4., one, 5, one, 2.8.1995, 8, 2.8.1995, 10, one, 2241