2014 Supreme(Raj) 1899
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Vijay Bishnoi, J.
Rajendra Nandwana - Appellant
Versus
M/s Mewar Finlease Pvt. Ltd. - Respondent
S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 2619 of 2014.
Decided On : 10-11-2014
Advocates:
For the Petitioner:Mr Deepak Menariya, Advocate.
Significant delay in filing the application for summoning documents and the requirement to prove demand and refusal of the documents by the respondent-company.
Headnote:
Delay - Summoning of Documents - The court dismissed the application for summoning certain documents under section 91 Cr.P.C. due to significant delay in filing the application and lack of evidence to prove demand and refusal of the documents by the respondent-company.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a petition challenging the order of the revisinoal court, which rejected the application for summoning certain documents under section 91 Cr.P.C. in a case under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. The trial court had rejected the application citing significant delay and intent to delay the proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court, after considering the orders passed by both the trial and revisinoal courts, concluded that the application for summoning documents was suffering from significant delay and lacked evidence to prove demand and refusal by the respondent-company. Therefore, the court dismissed the criminal misc. petition and the stay petition.
Issues: Delay in filing application for summoning documents, lack of evidence to prove demand and refusal of documents by the respondent-company.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the significant delay in filing the application for summoning documents and the lack of evidence to prove demand and refusal of the documents by the respondent-company.
Final Decision: The criminal misc. petition was dismissed, and the stay petition also stood dismissed.
JUDGMENT
1. - This criminal misc. petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner while challenging the order dated 09.07.2014 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Udaipur (for short 'the revisinoal court' hereinafter) in Cr.Revision Petition No.98/2013 preferred on behalf of the petitioner.
2. Brief facts of the case are that in the proceedings under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, pending against the petitioner, the petitioner moved an application under section 91 Cr.P.C. with a prayer for summoning certain documents. The Special Judicial Magistrate, N.I.Act No.1, Udaipur (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter) has rejected the said application while observing that the petitioner moved the said application after a delay of about two years. It has also been observed that in a case, instituted against the petitioner in the year 2007, the petitioner did not appear and was summoned through bailable warrant. On 11.11.2010, he was declared absconder and appeared on 08.03.2011 and on the same day, charges were read over to him. The trial court was of the opinion that the petitioner had moved the said application on 12.06.2013 with intent to delay the proceedings and, therefore, the trial court dismissed the application.
3. The revisional court has also taken into account the facts and circumstances of the case and observed that no case for summoning the documents, sought for in the application under section 91 Cr.P.C., is made out because the petitioner has failed to prove that the documents, sought to be summoned, have ever been demanded by him from the respondent-company and the company has refused to deliver the same to him. The revisional court has also observed that the application filed by the petitioner for summoning the documents is suffering from great delay and, therefore, there is no illegality in the order passed by the trial court.
4. After going through the orders passed by both the courts below and after taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is also of the opinion that the application filed by the petitioner for summoning certain documents is suffering from great delay. Hence, no case for interference is made out.
5. The instant criminal misc. is, therefore, dismissed. Stay petition also stands dismissed.Petition dismissed.
*******
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
