RAMESH CHAND Vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA
LAWS(HPH)-2017-6-128
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Decided on
June 20,2017
RAMESH CHAND
Appellant
VERSUS
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
MOHANLAL SHAMJI SONI VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER [REFERRED TO]HOFFMAN ANDREAS V. INSPECTOR OF CUSTOMS,AMRITSAR [REFERRED TO]
BALWANT SINGH VS. MAMUDEEN [REFERRED TO]
TALAB HAJI HUSSAIN VS. MADHUKAR PURSHOTTAM MONDKAR [REFERRED TO]
JAMATRAJ KEWALJI GOVANI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
RAJ DEO SHARMA VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
ZAHIRA HABIBULLA H SHEIKH VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
ZAHIRA HABIBULLAH SHEIKH VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
ZAHIRA HABIBULLAH SHEIKH VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
U T OF DADRA AND HAVELI VS. FATEHSINH MOHANSINH CHAUHAN [REFERRED TO]
KALYANI BASKAR VS. M S SAMPORNAM [REFERRED TO]
IDDAR VS. AABIDA [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY KUMAR VS. STATE OF U P [REFERRED TO]
SUDEVANAND VS. STATE THROUGH CBI [REFERRED TO]
P SANJEEVA RAO VS. STATE OF A P [REFERRED TO]
NATASHA SINGH VS. CBI [REFERRED TO]
RAJARAM PRASAD YADAV VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
MANNAN SK VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
SHEIKH JUMMAN VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
AG VS. SHIV KUMAR YADAV [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HARYANA VS. RAM MEHAR & OTHERS ETC. ETC. [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. -
(1.)This petition under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure takes exception to the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge on 5/9/2016, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. whereby application filed by the petitioner under Sec. 311 of the Cr.P.C. for additional evidence as well as re-cross-examination of witness CW-1 came to be rejected.
(2.)The petitioner has already suffered conviction at the hands of the learned Magistrate in proceedings under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short the 'Act') and was convicted to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes.
one month and fine amounting to Rs.2000.00 for the commission of offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Act and further directed to pay a compensation in the sum of Rs.1,50,000.00 to the . complainant.
(3.)In the application filed by the petitioner under Sec. 311 of the Cr.P.C., the only ground set-forth therein is seeking justification of the application is contained in para-2 thereof, which read as under:-
"2. That during the trial, complainant/respondent Bank deliberately did not produce the entire statement of account of Account No. 1986811396 and PMRY scheme as well as loan agreement, which are in the custody of respondent-Bank, as such these documents could not be put to the Bank witnesses, best available evidence has not been deliberately given by the respondent-bank."
(2.)The petitioner has already suffered conviction at the hands of the learned Magistrate in proceedings under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short the 'Act') and was convicted to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes.
one month and fine amounting to Rs.2000.00 for the commission of offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Act and further directed to pay a compensation in the sum of Rs.1,50,000.00 to the . complainant.
(3.)In the application filed by the petitioner under Sec. 311 of the Cr.P.C., the only ground set-forth therein is seeking justification of the application is contained in para-2 thereof, which read as under:-
"2. That during the trial, complainant/respondent Bank deliberately did not produce the entire statement of account of Account No. 1986811396 and PMRY scheme as well as loan agreement, which are in the custody of respondent-Bank, as such these documents could not be put to the Bank witnesses, best available evidence has not been deliberately given by the respondent-bank."
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.