MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT GWALIOR BENCH
S.K. Palo, J.
Vinod Kumar Sharma - Appellant
Versus
Satpura Narmada Kshetriya Gramin Bank - Respondent
M.Cr.C. No. 5851-2014
Decided On : 09-12-2014
Negotiable Instrument Act - Loan Dispute - Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act - Section 91 of Cr.P.C.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner obtained a loan from the respondent bank and issued cheques as security. The bank filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act when the cheques were dishonored. The petitioner sought the return of documents related to the loan from the bank and the Central Bureau of Investigation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no irregularity in the trial court's decision to dismiss the petitioner's application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. The petitioner was directed to file a fresh application with a specific list of documents and details.
Issues: Dispute over loan repayment, dishonored cheques, and the return of loan-related documents from the bank and Central Bureau of Investigation.
Ratio Decidendi: Vague description of documents under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. does not entitle the petitioner to call for documents from the possession of the respondent/complainant.
Final Decision: The petition is disposed of with the direction for the petitioner to file a fresh application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. with a specific list of documents and details.
S.K. Palo, J.
1. Heard.
2. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court seeking the relief to set aside the order dated 16.05.2014 passed by learned JMFC, Ambah district Morena in Criminal Case No. 1306/2011 (Satpura Narmada Kshetriya Gramin Bank Vs. Vinod Kumar Sharma) pending under Section138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, by which learned Trial Court has dismissed the application filed by the accused/petitioner under Section 91 of Cr.P.C.
3. The facts giving arise to this petition in brief are that the petitioner/accused obtained loan to the tune of Rs.82,80,000/- from the respondent/complainant Bank against the receipts of the warehouse and issued cheques of Central Bank of India, Branch Porsa having account No. 10206 on 13.04.2011. The value of these cheques is Rs.92,98,485/-. As these cheques were dishonoured, the complainant/bank has filed this complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. On behalf of the petitioner/accused, it is submitted that for the loan against receipts of the warehouse, no cheque was issued by him for construction of warehouse. He obtained a loan of Rs.15,00,000/- which was duly paid by him. Twenty post dated cheques were given to the Bank. If the loan amount is not repaid, the same could be recovered through these cheques as per the conditions imposed in the loan agreement. In compliance of these conditions, cheques No. 12611 to 12620 were given to the Bank as security to the loan amount. Against the second loan of Rs.15,00,000/-, only Rs.10,00,000/- was disbursed, which the petitioner deposited with the Bank. An account statement in this regard was given to the petitioner but the blank cheques which were given as a security were not returned to the petitioner.
4. In a different loan, these cheques were used by the respondent/complaint Bank by showing imaginary amounts. The petitioner, therefore, sought the file with regard to the loan of Rs.15,00,000/- which was lying with the complainant/Bank. These cheques were not produced and it was submitted that the same is returned to the applicant/borrower. It was further submitted by the Bank that with regard to the loan, all relevant files were seized by the Central Bureau of Investigation, Bhopal on 19.06.2012 and the files are in the custody of Central Bureau of Investigation, Bhopal but could not succeed. The applicant, therefore, requested to the Trial Court to issue an order to the Bank or to the Central Bureau of Investigation, Bhopal to produce the documents before the evidence begins in this case.
5. The complainant/respondent opposed the application before the Trial Court and submitted that every document related to loan case No. 70611 including the cheques were returned to the accused/petitioner. The other file of the Bank was seized by the Central Bureau of Investigation, Bhopal on 19.06.2012. In Challan D-153 and D-154 corroborates the same that the document has been in the custody of Central Bureau of Investigation, Bhopal. The present application has been filed to confuse the Trial Court and to prolong the decision.
6. The application dated 17.01.2014 was rejected by the learned Trial Court. After perusal of the record held that loan of Rs.82,80,000/- was obtained by the petitioner/accused against the receipts of warehouse. He executed cheques on 13.04.2011 from his Bank account No. 10206 of Central Bank of India Branch Porsa, how many cheques issued by him was not disclosed. When the documents or cheques seized by the Central Bureau of Investigation, Bhopal and the same is not included in the charge-sheet filed at Special Court, Bhopal, this copy of the same cannot be obtained by the applicant/accused but what efforts he has done to receive the same document has not been made clear in the application. No document in this regard has been filed. Learned Trial Court observed that which document the applicant/accused wants to obtain from the Central
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.