Moonlight Polymers Pvt Ltd & Anr v. Pankaj Plastic Industries

l #. ff o/o. L7 .O9.2OIO Present: Mr. S. Azad, Adv. for the petitioners' None for the resPondent. +Crl. M.A. No. 1523O/2O1O (exemption) * Allowed, subject to all just exceptions' f Application stalds disPosed of. crl. M.C. No. 2996l2O1() & Crl. M.A. No. 1522912010 (stayl

¶1Respondent filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the petitioners before the Trial Court. Notice was served on the respondent. It was alleged in the complaint that respond,ent had" purchased plastic darra from tJre * petitioners on 7tt-July, 2005 and Bth July, 2005' In order to '? discharge their liability, they issued five cheques of { 1 lac each amounting to T 5 lacs. On presentation, ttre cheques were received back d.ishonored. The cheque amount was not paid despite service of demand notice. After service, petitioners appea.red before the Trial Court. Notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. was served to which they pleaded not guilty and glaim ed tial. Respondent examined its witlesses and closed evidence. Thereafter, statement under Section Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. I 313 Cr.P.C. of the petitioner was recorded. Petitioners examined one Shri Arun Khanna as DWl on 4th December, 2OO9. Despite several opportunities petitioners did not examine any other witness in their defence. On 22na March, 2OlO, petitioners' defence evidence was closed on the statement made by petitionel No. 2 that no other witness was to be examined by ttrem. On 19e April, 2OLO final ,trSuments weire heard and case was adjourned for orders. At that stage, petitioners preferred" an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. praying therein that they be permitted to examine one more witrress to prove t]re Lease Deed. In fact, this Lease Deed appeals to have been executed. by Shri Arun Khanna in favour of petitioner No.'1. Shri Arun Khanna has already been exarnined as DWl. That apart, this Lease Deed. is insufficiently stamped and has not even been registered with the Sub Registrar. In view of this fact, Trial Court as well as the Additional sessions Judge, who has dealt with the ? Revision, have come to the conclusion that application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was devoid of merits and had been fiIed only to drag on the trial. I do not find the view taken by the Trial Court to be erroneous in the facts of this case. As per the respondent, cheques were issued by the petitioners in order to clear their liability to squa-re up their dues towards supplies made by the respondent to + the petitioners. FulI opportunity was granted to the petitioners to lead evid,ence in their defence. In fact, landlord has even been produced in ttre witness box. This document was very much available with the petitioners and same could have been produced earlier in the examination of DWl Arun Khanna. For the foregoing reasons, I am not inclined to interfere with -r.r the ord.ers of the courts below in exercise of inherent powers of this J Court under Section 482 Ct.P.C. This petition is dismissed' Nn .+*r)

AN. PATHAK, J. Septemb et L7 , 20 10 rb + l>