M/s. Aumega Biotec Inc. and Another vs M/s. Farmer Care Centre

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.—Concisely, the facts and material, which need a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record is that, initially complainant-respondent-M/s. Farmer Care Centre (for brevity "the complainant") has filed the criminal complaint against the petitioners accused M/s. Aumega Biotec Inc. and another, u/s 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter to be referred as the "N.I. Act"). During the course of trial, the complainant examined Jagtar Singh (CW-2), who has tendered his affidavit in evidence and proved certain documents. Thereafter, the petitioners-accused moved an application (Annexure P-2) for discarding his evidence (affidavit) on the ground that his name is not mentioned in the list of witnesses.

The complainant refuted the prayer of the petitioners accused and filed the reply (Annexure P-3).

Sequelly, the trial Magistrate dismissed the application (Annexure P-2) by means of impugned order dated 31.07.2012 (Annexure P-4).

Aggrieved thereby, the revision petition filed by the petitioners-accused, was dismissed as well by the Revisional Court, by virtue of impugned judgment dated 30.03.2013 (Annexure P-5).

The petitioners-accused still did not feel satisfied and preferred the present 2nd revision petition (which is otherwise legally barred) in the garb of petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C., to challenge the impugned order (Annexure P-4) and judgment (Annexure P-5).

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, going through the record with his valuable assistance and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition in this context.

Ex facie, the argument of the learned counsel that, since the name of Jagtar Singh (CW-2) was not mentioned in the list of witnesses, so, his evidence is liable to be discarded, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well.

As is evident from the record that, complainant-M/s. Farmer Care Centre is a Firm and has summoned Jagtar Singh (CW-2), who has placed on record his affidavit in evidence and proved other documents. Whether such evidence is admissible or otherwise, would be a moot point to be decided at the time of final stage of the main case. Be that as it may, but in any case, mere is no legal provision to discard his evidence, at mis stage, as contrary urged on behalf of the petitioners-accused. To me, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application(Annexure P-2), by means of impugned order (Annexure P-4).

Not only that, the matter was again re-examined and the Revisional Court considered and negated all the contentions, now sought to be urged on behalf of the petitioners and dismissed their revision petition, by way of impugned judgment (Annexure P-5), which in substance is as under:--

Moreover, the above said Jagtar Singh, who has been examined as the CW-2, has produced the evidence to the effect that he is working as an accountant with the complainant firm and the account books of this firm are maintained by him. He has produced those account books as well as the bills showing the inter se transaction between the parties. As the evidence of CW-2 Jagtar Singh is essential, as such the discretion exercised by the learned trial court to examine him, cannot be found to be fault with and therefore, the impugned order vide which the application filed by the revisionist to discard the evidence of the above said witness, has been dismissed, is found to be legally correct As such, the revision petition is dismissed. The parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 10.4.2013 for further proceedings.

Meaning thereby, the Courts below have analyzed the matter in the right perspective and recorded the cogent grounds in this relevant connection. Learned counsel for the petitioners did not point out any material, much less cogent, so as to warrant any interference in the impugned order (Annexure P-4) and judgment (Annexure P-5). Such impugned order/judgment, containing valid reasons, cannot possibly be interfered with by this Court, in this present 2nd revision petition, (which is otherwise legally barred u/s 397(3) Cr.P.C), in the garb of petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C., unless and until, the same are illegal, perverse and without jurisdiction. Since, no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, so, the impugned order (Annexure P-4) and judgment (Annexure P-5) deserve to be and are hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case.

No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant petition is hereby dismissed as such.