TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (3) TMI 208
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... complaint under Section 138 NI Act was that the petitioner had issued six post dated cheques in favour of the respondent in furtherance of the loan agreement dated 24.10.2011 for Rs. 1,43,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Forty Three Lacs Only). However, the said cheques were dishonoured on presentation. Thereafter the respondent issued legal demand notices dated 14.07.2012 to the petitioner and when the petitioner failed to repay the loan amount within 15 days notice period it led to the filing of a complaint case under Section 138 NI Act before the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, (N-W), Rohini, Delhi. 4. On the basis of the documents available on record the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, (N/W)/Rohini Courts, Delhi took cognizance of the case and issued notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner vide order dated 16.02.2013. 5. During the trial proceedings the respondent/complainant(CW-1) was cross-examined by the counsel for the petitioner and several questions were asked from her one of which related to the income tax returns(ITRs). Consequently, the learned MM deferred the further cross-examination of the respondent/complainant ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... examination for its restriction because the cross examination is to be conducted on the basis of the plea of defence taken by the accused to safeguard himself from the clutches of the respondent/complainant and rebut the presumption. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned ASJ is bad in law as the order dated 24.05.2014 passed by the trial Court was an interlocutory order to which revision should not have been entertained and prays that the impugned order dated 23.08.2014 passed by the learned ASJ is liable to be set aside as the same is bad in law. Reliance is placed on the following judgments: i. Sethuraman vs. Rajamanickam; (2009) 5 SCC 153. ii. Amar Nath vs. State of Haryana; (1977) 4 SCC 137. iii. Madhu Limaye vs. State of Maharashtra; (1977) 4 SCC 551. 12. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the order dated 24.05.2014 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate was bad in law and the respondent had approached the Court of Sessions in revision. It is further submitted that the impugned order dated 23.08.2014 is not an interlocutory order rather it is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the notice? Ans. Yes. Q.2 Do you plead guilty? Ans. I do not plead guilty and claim trial. Q.3 What do you want to say in your defence? Ans. I had given the aforesaid cheques as security towards the loan amount of Rs. 1.43 crore. The cheques were filled in all respects. Again said, the cheques were undated. I have also got my property registered in the name of the complainant but after I made the payment towards the entire loan amount. On making the payment more than 50%, the properties were registered back in my name. However the original documents were kept by the complainant. Thereafter, on making the balance payment of Rs. 25 lacs on 24.5.2012, the complainant returned me original documents of my property. I had repaid the loan amount by way of cheques and cash and I have receipt of the same. Therefore, nothing remains due upon me and I do not have any liability. The complainant has misused my cheques. On 20.6.2012, I had sent the legal notice to the complainant for returning my cheques. Thereafter the complainant presented my cheques in the bank which got dishonoured. I had not received the legal notice. RO & AC (Shefali Barnala Tandon) MM(N/W)/Rohini ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he summons or order. (2) Any person required under this section merely to produce a document or other thing shall be deemed to have complied with the requisition if he causes such document or thing to be produced instead of attending personally to produce the same. (3) Nothing in this section shall be deemed- (a) to affect sections 123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872 ), or the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891 (13 of 1891) or (b) to apply to a letter, postcard, telegram or other document or any parcel or thing in the custody of the postal or telegraph authority." 21. In the present petition the order dated 24.05.2014 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate is in the form of the direction for the production of the income tax returns (ITRs) for the period 2005-2006 to 2011-2012 of the respondent/complainant at the time of cross-examination by the counsel of the petitioner. 22. The cross-examination of the respondent/complainant would be on the basis of its relevancy of the facts of the allegation put to the accused in the examination in chief attributing its motive and its connection or linkage with the facts attributing to the commissi....