DINESH KUMAR DWIVEDI vs STATE OF M P

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed against the order dated 22.08.2016 passed by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain in criminal revision no.146/2016, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the revision filed against the order dated 10.06.2016 passed by the learned trial Judge in criminal case no.1734/2010, by which the learned trial Court dismissed an application filed under Section 254(2) Cr.P.C. in respect of some of the defence witnesses. The trial Court refused to summon them to record their statement as defence witnesses.

The relevant facts for disposal of this application are that the present applicant is facing trial before the trial Court in criminal case no.1734/08 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. At the stage of adducing defence evidence, application under Section 254(2) of Cr.P.C. was filed and it was prayed that certain persons may be summoned as defence witnesses.

According to the complainant, accused signed the questionable cheque on behalf of the partnership Firm known as M/s Kamdhenu Biotech Seeds showing himself to be the proprietor of the Firm. The cheque book was of an account maintained by the Firm and the accused signed it on behalf of the Firm.

The present applicant sought permission of the Court to summon Ramchandra Patidar to prove that the applicant is not the owner and proprietor of the Firm. The Court observed that it is not disputed that signature on the cheque is that of the present applicant. It is also not disputed that he signed the cheque purportedly on behalf of the Firm, and therefore, it is immaterial whether he is the owner or the Manager of the Firm.

In respect of another defence witness Raju Parmar, the reason for summoning him was stated to be to prove the transactions between the complainant and the accused. The Court observed that transactions between the accused and the complainant are not disputed. Only it was disputed that whether cheque was given as security or against the legal enforceable liability and for that purpose statement of defence witness is not relevant. In respect of third witness Govind Jha, who according to the present applicant took the cheque, reason for summoning him was to prove that the cheque he took was given as a security and not against the legal enforceable liability. The Court observed that to prove this fact, a person who took the cheque from the accused to be given it to the complainant is not relevant.

Learned counsel appearing for the complainant submits that the present applicant failed to get relief from the two Courts and only to delay the matter further this application is filed. According to him, the defence witnesses were not relevant and therefore, the order passed by the learned revisional Court and the learned trial Court are in accordance with the provisions of law and no interference is called for.

I have gone through the order passed by the learned revisional Court as well as the trial Court. The reasons given for dismissing the application and relevancy was given to the statements of the defence witnesses proposed to be summoned by the present applicant are all legal and acceptable. There appears to be no perversity or illegality in the orders of the Court below.

For the reasons given by the revisional Court, it is apparent that the statements of such witnesses are not necessary to decide the controversy involved in this case. In this view of the matter, this application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is devoid of any force and liable to be dismissed and dismissed accordingly. C.C.as per rules.