9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 466X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t (for short 'the Act'). 3. Briefly stated the complaint averments are that the complainant Shri Malaprabha Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane (N), M.K. Hubli, Belagavi district, is duly registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959. It needs labourers and transport contractors etc., during harvesting season. Such being the fact, during the year 2013-14 and 2014-15, the accused voluntarily made an offer to the complainant to supply the required labourers to cut the sugarcane and supply to the complainant site. The complainant accepted the offer and made an agreement with the accused on the terms and conditions enumerated in the agreement. At the time of execution of agreement, the complainant paid huge amount as advance to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accused for the year 2013-14 and 2014-15. 5. The learned Magistrate by an order dated 20.03.2021 rejected the said application which is questioned in this petition. 6. It is the contention of the learned counsel for petitioner that the reasons assigned by the learned Magistrate while passing the impugned order are erroneous. He submits that the respondent/complainant has based its claim on harvesting and transportation agreement executed between the petitioner and the respondent and therefore, the production of the said document is necessary to rebut the presumption. The learned Magistrate has mechanically rejected the application without giving any proper reasons. He submits that Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. empowers the Court to issue sum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wards performance of the work. It is needless to say that the complainant who has filed the complaint has to prove his case. The trial Court while dismissing the application has relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in D.K. CHANDEL VS. M/S. WOCKHARDT LTD., AND ANOTHER in Crl. A. No. 132/2020 (arising out of SLP No. 1621/2018) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under: "As rightly observed by the High Court production of the account books/cash book may be relevant in the civil court; but may not be so in the criminal case filed under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. This is because of the presumption raised in favour of the holder of the cheque. In view of the concurrent findings recorded by the Trial Court as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
