D.P.Mohta v. State & Anr

ORDER o/o L7.O9.2O08 Admittedly,thepetitionerhadsignedthechequedatedMarch 27 , 1ggT which was dishonoured on April 2, 1997. Admittedly again' after the cheque was dishonoured, he was served a notice which he received and even responded to the same' AfterthepetitionerWaSsummonedbytheCourtofthe Metropolitan Magistrate, he moved an application under section 91 of the code of criminal procedure seeking a direction to the company to produce certain documents in order to show that he had left the company at the time when the cheque in question was issued ano tnerefore he was not in-charge of the management of the affairs of the accused company. This request of the petitioner was declined by the Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated May 31, 2008. Hence, the present revision petition' It is not understood as to why when the petitioner admits that the cheque in question bears his signatures, the application under t Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. ,rr,.q-a 2-& section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed' The Metropolitan Magistrate has rightly dismissed the application' There is no merit in the revision petition. The same is dismissed' However' it will be open to the petitioner to move the Metropolitan Magistrate, for a direction to the complainant to place the relevant documents on the record. This is an application under section 482 of the code of Criminal Procedure seeking exemption from filing certified copies of annexures. The application is allowed subject to the petitionef.-fj-Lng certified copies of annexures, within four weeks' I rr \d \l^'---

REKHA SHARMA, J. SEPTEMBER L7, 2OO8' PC. ?

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.M .C. 304712008 D'P'MoHrA rhroush M;. sti,cT:i?il"Jr,n'a, sr' Advocate With Mr. Satyanarayan and Mr' Madhav Khurana, Advocates VCTSUS STATE & ANR. ""' ResPondent Through Mr. Janendra Lal, Advocate CORAM: HON',BLE Mlss rusTlcE REKHA SHARMA