TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (7) TMI 513
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has been dismissed. 2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the instant petition are that the complainant/bank maintained a complaint against the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (For short "the Act"), which is pending adjudication before the learned Court below. When the said case was listed for arguments, the accused moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for adducing the evidence to the effect that he wanted to produce on record the fraud committed by the bank by mortgaging the property of his wife and brother and also the fact that the bank on the pretext of advancing loan of Rs. 25 Crores and adjusting the present loan, i.e. approximately Rs. 6 Crores, which the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1966 Orissa 102. (2) AIR 1968 Supreme Court 178. (3) AIR 1991 Supreme Court 1346." 5. On the other hand, Mr. Deepak Bhasin, Advocate, has argued that the petitioner has taken loan from the bank and this is undisputed fact. He has further argued that first application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was moved by the petitioner in the learned Court below in the year, 2018 and thereafter second application under Section 311 was moved on 01.06.2022 and last application was moved on 10.06.2022 and all these applications are on different footings and without challenging the orders already passed in the same. He has argued that the applications are moved just to delay the proceedings and nothing more. He has argued that the petitioner has not only....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion 311 Cr.P.C. only if the same are required to be exercised to meet the ends of justice. 9. In the instant case, the petitioner has taken the loan from the bank and he has issued cheques to the bank towards payment of loan amount. It is not in dispute that consideration for the issuance of cheques is the loan amount, which the petitioner was to repay to the bank. It is also not in dispute that cheques bear signatures of the petitioner. In these circumstances, this Court has no reason to come to the conclusion that any other evidence is required to be adduced on record in proceedings under Section 138 of the Act, which are summary proceedings, for the simple reason that when the loan was taken, the petitioner supposed to have mortgaged th....