9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 297X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tomer of him owed a liability of Rs. 5,00,000/- to him. The name of the business concern having not been mentioned in the complaint, the bills proposed for marking cannot be said to have any connection to the transaction alleged in the complaint. The impugned order is not liable to be interfered with - application dismissed. - Crl. MC No. 1414 of 2022 - - - Dated:- 13-5-2022 - Mary Joseph, J. For the Appellant : Akshay R., C. Muralikrishnan and Abraham George Jacob, Advs. ORDER This petition is filed challenging an order passed on 10.02.2022 by Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II (Munsiff), Payyannur (for short 'the court below') in CMP No. 1422/2021 in STC No. 128/2019. 2. STC No. 128/2019 is a prosecut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... complainant is not believable. Moreover the documents furnished for marking through recalling the witness are the bills issued by the firm Cherupushpam Traders, Padiyottuchal. The complainant has no case that his business firm is Cherupushpam Traders. PW1 has not produced other documents to show that his firm is in the name and style Cherupushpam Traders. If it were true, the petitioner could have produced the license issued by the local self government Institution. Hence the contention that the documents proposed to be furnished are not related to alleged transaction has also reason to accept. Further, the documents proposed to be marked are not certified by the person who issued them. For the above reasons, it cannot be found that the do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... being photocopies are inadmissible in evidence. It was further contended that the additional documents sought to be marked in evidence are not related to the period of transaction alleged in the complaint. According to him there is no whisper of the particulars of the alleged transaction in the complaint. Not even the name of the business concern run by the complainant was mentioned in the complaint filed to launch the prosecution. The additional documents produced incorporate some bills, which if related to the transaction, it ought to have been produced by the complainant alongwith the complaint. Complainant failed to produce those even when oral evidence was tendered by him as PW1. 5. According to the learned counsel for the complaina ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
