Delhi District Court
Amit Kumar Yadav vs Ravi Mongia on 14 August, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SHRI GURVINDER PAL SINGH
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE05, SOUTH WEST DISTRICT
DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
Criminal Revision No.: 92/18
CNR No. DLSW010049422018
Amit Kumar Yadav
S/o Sh. Dal Chand Yadav
R/o WZ206A, Madipur,
New Delhi110063. .....Revisionist
Versus
Ravi Mongia
s/o Late Sh. Kesar Dass,
R/o 31/7, Second Floor,
East Patel Nagar, New Delhi110008. .....Respondent
Revision under section 397 read with section 399 Cr.P.C. for setting
aside the order dated 22.12.2017 passed by Magisterial Court
Date of Institution : 26.02.2018
Arguments heard on : 28.07.2018
Date of Judgment : 14.08.2018
JUDGMENT
1. Revision under section 397 read with section 399 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short Cr.P.C.) has been preferred by CR No 92/18 CNR No. DLSW010049422018 Amit Kumar Yadav Vs. Ravi Mongia 1 of 11 revisionist/complainant against impugned order dated 22.12.2017 passed by Trial Court of Ms. Paridhi Gupta, MM/N.I.Act 02/South West/Dwarka/Delhi, in CIS No. 5003104/2016 titled as "Sh. Amit Kumar Yadav Vs. Ravi Mongia" whereby Ld. Trial Court has directed the revisionist/complainant to supply advance copy of the documents, required and admitted during his crossexamination on behalf of the respondent/accused; also for correction of alleged typographical error in the crossexamination of the revisionist/complainant recorded on 22.12.2017.
2. I have heard the revisionist through Sh. Siddhartha Yadav, Learned counsel and respondent through Sh. B.K.Wadhwa and Sh. Mayank Maini, Ld. Counsels. I have perused the record of Revision and of Trial Court. I have also perused the written submissions filed by the parties and the relied upon precedents. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions put forth.
3. Revision petition rests upon the premise that the impugned order is wrong, erroneous, perverse and against the principles of law and CR No 92/18 CNR No. DLSW010049422018 Amit Kumar Yadav Vs. Ravi Mongia 2 of 11 natural justice; the observations passed by the Magisterial Court that the assertion made by the counsel for the petitioner is found to be demeaning and lowers the dignity of the court is not correct in view of the fact that no such assertion was made by the counsel for the revisionist/complainant; observations made by the Ld. MM that the counsel for the petitioner had repeatedly interfered with the recording of the testimony of the petitioner despite repeated warnings and had attempted to put words in the mouth of the witness is not correct as no interference was made by the counsel for the petitioner during the cross examination; there was no occasion for the Ld. MM to give warnings to the counsel for the petitioner; the observations passed by Ld. MM against the counsel for the petitioner for demeaning and lowering down of the dignity of the court are unwarranted and uncalled for and are liable to be set aside. It is further averred that typing of month of "July" in place of "September" in the last para of the crossexamination of the petitioner was clearly a typographical error. It is further averred that the income tax returns and documents relating to the investment of the petitioner in share market are the personal documents of the petitioner CR No 92/18 CNR No. DLSW010049422018 Amit Kumar Yadav Vs. Ravi Mongia 3 of 11 for which petitioner has no objection to their production but directions passed by Ld. MM to provide advance copy of the documents to the counsel for the respondent are not proper and should be set aside. Revisionist/complainant has relied upon (1) Ram Chander Vs. The State of Haryana, AIR 1981 SC 1036; (2) State of Rajasthan Vs. Ani @ Hanif & Ors., AIR 1997 SC 1023; (3) K.Rawindra Reddy Vs. The State of A.P. & Ors; 2016(2) DCR 546; (4) Bhim Singh Vs. Kan Singh, 2004(2) DCR 158; (5) Hari Nivas Traders Vs. S.J.L.T.Textiles Ltd., 2008(2) DCR 658; (6) Rajeev Soni Vs. Indresh Singh, 2007(2) DCR 62; (7) Dilip Kumar Vs. Sunita Mittal 2017 (2) DCR 592; and (8) Naresh Trehan Vs. Rakesh Kumar Gupta WP(C) 85/2010 CM Nos. 156/2010 & 5560/2011 decided on 24.11.2014 by High Court of Delhi.
4. Respondent has also relied upon (1) V.C. Shukla Vs. State through CBI, AIR 1980 SC 962; (2) Amar Nath & Ors Vs. State of Haryana & Ors., MANU/SC/0068/1977;(3) K.K.Patel & Anr. Vs. State CR No 92/18 CNR No. DLSW010049422018 Amit Kumar Yadav Vs. Ravi Mongia 4 of 11 of Gujarat & Anr. (2000) 6 SCC 195; and (4) Central Bank of India Ltd. Vs. Gokal Chand, (1967) 1 SCR 310: AIR 1967 SC 799.
5. Revisionist has filed the complaint complaining the offence committed by the respondent/accused under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short N.I.Act) alleging having advanced friendly loan of Rs.10 lacs in September 2015 to respondent/accused whereby the respondent/accused issued a post dated cheque no. 155312 dated 04.07.2016 for Rs.10 lacs drawn on Axis Bank Ltd., Patel Nagar, East, New Delhi110008 which on presentation was dishonoured with remarks, "drawers signatures differs".
6. On appearance before Trial Court the respondent/accused in response to notice under section 251 Cr.P.C. took defence that he had taken loan of Rs.1.5 lacs from respondent/complainant and had issued the cheque in question as security whereas he had already repaid the entire loan amount with interest and as such he owed no liability towards the complainant whereby respondent/accused also claimed that he had given the cheque in question as a blank signed cheque and had CR No 92/18 CNR No. DLSW010049422018 Amit Kumar Yadav Vs. Ravi Mongia 5 of 11 denied receipt of legal notice from the complainant. Also was the assertion of respondent/accused that the father of revisionist/complainant had given the loan to him and the respondent/accused has misused the cheque in question.
7. Section 118 of N.I.Act interalia lays down the presumption of consideration as to Negotiable Instruments that until contrary is proved, it would be presumed that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration.
8. Section 139 of N.I.Act lays down the presumption in favour of holder of the cheque that unless contrary is proved, it shall be presumed that holder of cheque, received the cheque for the discharge, in whole or in part of any debt or other liability.
9. Vide impugned order, during course of evidence of revisionist/complainant, the Magisterial Court had directed the partly examined revisionist/complainant to supply advance copies of his income tax returns (ITRs) for the assessment of last 5 years CR No 92/18 CNR No. DLSW010049422018 Amit Kumar Yadav Vs. Ravi Mongia 6 of 11 commencing from 2012 to 2017 as well as documents pertaining to the business of share market so that respondent/accused/counsel may go through the voluminous set of documents to further crossexamine revisionist/complainant CW1.
10. In ground J of revision petition, it is averment of the revisionist/complainant inter alia that he has no objection for production of documents before the Trial court at the time of recording of his examination but the direction passed by Ld. MM to provide advance copy of documents to the counsel for respondent/accused is not proper and should be set aside. Also, revisionist/complainant wants rectification of alleged typographical error with respect to allegedly wrongly typed words, "2829th July 2015" in crossexamination of revisionist/complainant recorded on 22.12.2017 which actually should be allegedly read as "2829th September 2015."
11. The foremost objection of the respondent/accused had been that revision against impugned order is not maintainable as impugned order is interlocutory in nature. In the case of Dilip Kumar (supra), CR No 92/18 CNR No. DLSW010049422018 Amit Kumar Yadav Vs. Ravi Mongia 7 of 11 High Court of Delhi held that the direction given by the Magisterial Court to respondent/complainant therein was an intermediate order passed under section 91 Cr.P.C. which was in the form of final order for the purpose of giving the direction for production of income tax returns (ITRs) and accordingly, the said order is a revisionable order under section 397 Cr.P.C. Similar is the impugned order in this case and accordingly, such a direction for production of ITRs is in the form of final order for such purposes and accordingly, it is an intermediate order for which revision is accordingly, maintainable.
12. Fact remains that it had been own version of revisionist complainant that he has no objection in production of the requisite records of ITRs and documents pertaining to the business of share market but the only objection is for supply of the advance copy.
13. If voluminous documents are provided in the court to the opposite party/counsel, then it will be taking several hours or in fact days together for the parties/counsel to scrutinize these voluminous documents to carve out the necessary questions required to be put to the CR No 92/18 CNR No. DLSW010049422018 Amit Kumar Yadav Vs. Ravi Mongia 8 of 11 revisionist complainant in his crossexamination. Since elicited law in sections 118 and 139 of N.I.Act embodies elicited presumptions in favour of holder of the cheque whereby duty is casted over the respondent/accused to rebut such presumptions and such presumptions can be rebutted either by the respondent/accused by leading defence evidence or from the crossexamination of the complainant, putting questions regarding own documents of complainant. This necessitates in the fair trial to give reasonable time and opportunity to respondent accused to defend his case and rebut presumptions aforesaid in accordance with law. For effective crossexamination, it is found expedient in the interest of justice that the revisionist/complainant supplies two days in advance from his further crossexamination, the desired copies of income tax returns and the documents pertaining to the business of share market to the respondent/accused/counsel to avoid further delays in own cause of revisionist/complainant of expeditious trial of his lis.
14. In the fact of the matter, I do not find any of the relied CR No 92/18 CNR No. DLSW010049422018 Amit Kumar Yadav Vs. Ravi Mongia 9 of 11 precedents of revisionist/complainant to be of any help to him to modify or vary the order of the Trial court. So far as rectification of any alleged typographical error is concerned, for the same, no plea has been put forth in writing before the Magisterial Trial Court either on the date of part examination of respondent complainant i.e., on 22.12.2017 or later to the Trial Court for corrections of alleged typographical mistakes.
15. Perusal of Trial Court record reveals that on the part deposition of revisionist complainant, before the Trial court on 22.12.2017 below RO&AC as well as on the first page, the revisionist/complainant has appended his signatures. There is no noting of revisionist/complainant of the alleged typographical mistake. Had it been the case of revisionist/complainant that with regard to deposition of revisionist/complainant as CW1 on 22.12.2017, there happened a typographical error of typing "July" instead of "September" then there was no impediment in the way of revisionist/complainant to either record his objection above his signatures and/or move appropriate application either on 22.12.2017 or on the next working day. Nothing CR No 92/18 CNR No. DLSW010049422018 Amit Kumar Yadav Vs. Ravi Mongia 10 of 11 of the sort has been done. Still, if the revisionist has any grievance with respect to typographical error, liberty is granted to him to move appropriate application before the Magisterial Trial Court in accordance with law for such correction of alleged typographical mistake.
16. Finding no illegality nor impropriety nor irregularity in the impugned order and the revision petition being devoid of merits, it is hereby dismissed.
17. Trial court record alongwith copy of this judgment be sent back to concerned Magisterial Court. File of revision petition be consigned to record room. Digitally signed by GURVINDER GURVINDER PAL SINGH PAL SINGH Date: 2018.08.14 12:25:59 +0530 Announced in the open court (GURVINDER PAL SINGH) on date 14.08.2018 ASJ 05/SW/DWARKA COURTS NEW DELHI (sc) CR No 92/18 CNR No. DLSW010049422018 Amit Kumar Yadav Vs. Ravi Mongia 11 of 11