9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (8) TMI 810X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 006 and 712/SS/2006. During the trial of all these complaints, the complainant through its partner Mr. Narsiha N. Patel filed an affidavit by Way of evidence in examination-in-chief. Along with the same certain documents were brought on record. The accused therefore, filed separate applications for an order to issue summons to the accused and to examine him for recording his examination-in-chief with regards to the facts stated by him in the affidavit. A reliance in this regard was placed on the provisions of Section 145(1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. These applications filed in all the three complaints came to be rejected by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on or about 18.7.2007 and hence, these petitions challenging the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t case and more particularly, the postal envelope sought to be brought on record with the said affidavit. He submitted that if any question is asked on the said envelope, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate is required to exhibit it and it would thus become the proved document and will have to be admitted, even though the postman concerned may not be a witness available for recording his evidence, so as to bring on record the factum of service of the postal envelope on the addressees namely the accused. 5. Having regard to the scheme of Sections 138, 139, 140, 141 of the Act the documents either submitted along with the complaint or along with affidavit in examination-in-chief even if exhibited, cannot be read in evidence per se. For exa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... areness of the procedural law and, therefore, no prejudice has been caused to the present petitioners by the impugned order rejecting the applications for issue of witness summons. I am sure that the Trial Court will take into consideration the observations made in this order and take all the possible steps to comply with the procedural requirements while conducting the trial in the aforesaid complaints. Petitions are, therefore, rejected. At this stage Mr. Marwadi stated that the Trial Court has issued non-bailable warrant on 16.8.2007 against the petitioner No. 2 and he states that the petitioner No. 2 will appear before the Trial Court on or before 28.8.2007. Undertaking is accepted. In view of the aforesaid undertaking the non-bailab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
