9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 874X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... took the defence that earlier some money transaction was made between them and in respect of the same he had given the aforesaid cheques, but even after paying the same, complainant did not return the cheques, given by him. He has misused the same by filing this present case. It is undisputed, the order of rejection passed under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. is an interlocutory in nature and same can not be challenged by filing a revision petition. Therefore, the learned Revisional court did not make any error in passing the said order. Petition dismissed. - M.Cr.C. No. 12567/2017 - - - Dated:- 10-5-2019 - Shri Justice Rajendra Kumar Srivastava For the Petitioner : Shri S.K. Saini, learned counsel For the Respondent : Shri A.K. Tiwari,, learned counsel ORDER Petitioner has filed this miscellaneous criminal case under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., being aggrieved by the order dated 11.07.2017, in Cr.R. No. 172/2017, passed by 5th ASJ, Jabalpur, arising out of order dated 13.01.2017, in Criminal Case No. 1763/2015, passed by JMFC, Jabalpur, whereby the learned JMFC has rejected an application under Section 91 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 08.03.2013 regarding three cheques. 5. The complainant/respondent has opposed the application filed by the petitioner/accused and submits that the complainant is not cross examined yet, thus, he has not expressed any consent or denial, regarding the above said documents. It is principle of law that prior to cross examination of the complainant, accused/petitioner can not pray for producing the documents from the complainant on his defence. He further submits that the application filed by the petitioner is having no cause and only to delay the trial. 6. After considering the averments made in the application, and looking to the submissions of both the parties, the learned trial Court came to this conclusion that the complainant expressed that he is an agriculturist and he did not give any amount by withdrawing the same from bank and he also does not pay any income tax, thus, he has no documents in this regard. After considering the circumstances of the case, the learned trial Court has given the finding that due to absence of admitted documents, complainant can not be compelled to produce the same and the application filed by the peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (1) Whenever any Court or any officer in charge of a police station considers that the production of any document or other thing is necessary or desirable for the purposes of any investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code by or before such Court or officer, such Court may issue a summons, or such officer a written order, to the person in whose possession or power such document or thing is believed to be, requiring him to attend and produce it, or to produce it, at the time and place stated in the summons or order. (2) Any person required under this section merely to produce a document or other thing shall be deemed to have complied with the requisition if he causes such document or thing to be produced instead of attending personally to produce the same. (3) Nothing in this section shall be deemed- (a) to affect sections 123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872 ), or the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891 (13 of 1891 ) or (b) to apply to a letter, postcard, telegram or other document or any parcel or thing in the custody of the postal or telegraph authority. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal Anr. (1979) 3 SCC 4. Ultimately, this would always depend upon the facts of each case and it would be difficult to lay down a rule of universal application and for all times. The fact that in one case the Court thought fit to exercise such powers is no compelling circumstance to do so in all and every case before it, as a matter of course and for the mere asking. The Court concerned must be allowed a large latitude in the matter of exercise of discretion and unless in a given case the Court was found to have conducted itself in so demonstrably an unreasonable manner unbecoming of a judicial authority, the Court superior to that Court cannot intervene very lightly or in a routine fashion to interpose or impose itself even at that stage. The reason being, at that stage, the question is one of mere proprieties involved in the exercise of judicial discretion by the Court and not of any rights concretised in favour of the accused. 14. Reading of the above cited judgment, it becomes clear that the superior Court can intervene only in case where the discretion exercised by the lower Court neither judiciously nor judicially and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the stage of cross examination of complainant. The complainant had stated that he is an agriculturist and does not pay any income tax. He did not give any amount to petitioner/accused by withdrawing the same from the bank, therefore, he is unable to produce the document, as desire by the petitioner/accused. The Revisional Court has dismissed the revision, filed by the accused by relying the judgment of Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Sethu Raman Vs. Rajamanickam reported in (2009) 5 SCC 153 , in which the Hon ble Apex court has held that against the interlocutory order revision petition is not maintainable. It is undisputed, the order of rejection passed under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. is an interlocutory in nature and same can not be challenged by filing a revision petition. Therefore, the learned Revisional court did not make any error in passing the said order. 17. In view of the judgment of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Om Prakash Sharma (Supra), this Court does not found any apparent error to interfere in the discretion of the learned JMFC. 18. Accordingly this petition is dismissed. However, petitioner shall be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
