Ramesh Nagpal vs State & Another
2008 Latest Caselaw 1274 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                          CRL.M.C.No.2548/2008

%                       Date of Decision: 07.08.2008

Ramesh Nagpal                                          .... Petitioner

                        Through Mr.Kumar Sushobhan, Advocate

                                Versus

State & Another                                        .... Respondents

                        Through Nemo.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR

1.   Whether reporters of Local papers may be                YES
     allowed to see the judgment?
2.   To be referred to the reporter or not?                   NO
3.   Whether the judgment should be reported in               NO
     the Digest?


ANIL KUMAR, J.

*

The petitioner has challenged the order dated 3rd July, 2008 of

the Metropolitan Magistrate dismissing his application under Section

311 of Criminal Procedure Code for calling the witness from Central

Bank, Kashmere Gate Branch.

The petitioner has filed complaints against the respondent No.2

under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner

allegedly advanced Rs.9.00 lakh to the respondent No.2 whereas the

respondent No.2 in her statement under Section 313 of the Criminal

Procedure Code admitted that only Rs.5.00 lakh had been advanced as

loan by the petitioner.

The evidence was led by the petitioner and the respondent No.2

accused and after the final arguments were concluded by the accused

and the lacunas in the case of the petitioner were pointed out, the

complainant/petitioner filed the application for calling the witnesses

from Central Bank, Kashmere Gate Branch.

Perusal of the application under Section 311 of the Criminal

Procedure Code does not make out a case for calling the said witness

after conclusion of the evidence of the petitioner and as to why the said

witness could not be called by the petitioner before conclusion of

arguments in the case.

In the circumstances, the decision of the learned Metropolitan

Magistrate dismissing the application of the petitioner with costs cannot

be faulted. There is no such manifest error or illegality in the order

dated 3rd July, 2008 which shall entail interference by this Court in

exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure

Code. The petition is without any merit. The petition is, therefore,

dismissed.

August 07th , 2008. ANIL KUMAR, J.

'Dev'