Challenging the order partly allowing the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C, the present revision has been filed.
2.The respondent herein filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act on the ground that he borrowed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- from the complainant and in order to discharge the same, he has given a cheque. When the same was presented for collection, it was returned as 'insufficient fund'. Thereafter, he filed a complaint. During the trial, he filed a petition under
Section 311 Cr.P.C stating that the disputed cheque was not given to the complainant and in fact, he has borrowed a sum of Rs.60,000/- from one Jeyasri Finance and for that borrowal, he has given a signed blank cheque to one Jeyasri Finance through its advocate Sam Selvakumar. Subsequently, the petitioner discharged the above loan. But the said Jeyasri Finance has not returned the cheque. By using the above cheque, the present complaint has been filed by one Sridharan, who is the Proprietor of the Jeyasri Finance and Sam Selvakumar, an advocate through whom the amount has been given to Jeyasri Finance and the petitioner sought to examine these two persons. The trial court partly allowed the application, permitting the petitioner to examine the said Sridharan and dismissed the petition to examine the advocate Sam Selvakumar. Challenging the same, the present petition has been filed.
3.I have heard Mr.C.Susi Kumar for Mr.M.Subash Babu, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. Even though notice has been sent to the respondent and his name has been printed in the cause-list, non appears on behalf of the respondent. Perused the records carefully.
4. The reason for filing the petition under
Section 311 Cr.P.C is that the petitioner has only borrowed a sum of Rs.60,000/- from Jeyasri Finance through its advocate Sam Selvakumar. At the time of borrowing the amount, he has given a signed blank cheque in favour of Jeyasri Finance, which has been misused by the present complainant. The petitioner has also subsequently discharged the above loan through the advocate Sam Selvakumar. Even from the allegations made in the complaint, it is clear that the above said Advocate Sam Selvakumar said to have acted as mediator, at the time of borrowal of amount and he is nothing to do with the issuance of cheque. Hence, it is sufficient to examine the owner of the finance company, viz., Sridharan, who said to received the cheque from the petitioner. The trial court also, after considering the fact, permitted the petitioner to examine the above said Sridharan. There is no illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the court below. Hence, this Criminal Revision case is liable to be dismissed.
5. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Since the matter is pending from the year 2010, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Padmanabhapuram, is directed to complete the trial in C.C.No.80 of 1999, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed.
To The Judicial Magistrate, Padmanabapuram .