SANDIPAN BHAGWAN THORAT Vs. ASHOK DAGDULAL LUNAWAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Sakhare, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant, mr. Bodke, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1. and Ms. Gajre, learned APP for the State.

(2.) The applicant is original accused, while respondent No. 1. is the complainant. The case of the respondent-complainant is that the accused had received amount of Rs. 20 Lakh from him and for repayment of the same he had issued a cheque in favour of the complainant, which was dishonoured and therefore, the complaint under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act was filed. It appears that it is the case of the complainant that he had received a cheque of Rs. 20 Lakhs from Vithal Sikshan prasarak Mandal and that cheque was credited in his own account with Madheshwari urban Co-operative Bank Madha. On payment of Rs. 20 lakh to the accused by cheque against his own account with madheshwari Urban Co-operative Bank, the amount was also credited in the account of the accused in the same bank. The accused had withdrawn that amount from his account. All these transactions took place between 24th April to 27 April, 2004. It is the contention of the accused that neither the complainant had received the amount from Vithal Shikshan prasarak Mandal nor amount was actually credited in his account nor it was transferred to the account of the accused nor it was with drawn by him from the said account maintained by Madheshwari urban Co-operative Bank. It is also contended that the said bank did not have funds during the relevant period to prove the payment of Rs. 20 lakh to the accused. It is contended that the complainant was vice-President of the Madheshwari Urban co-operative Bank and he had maintained the records of the Bank and had managed to take false entries.

(3.) The Manager of the said Bank was called as a witness on behalf of the complainant and during the cross-examination certain question were put to him and he admitted that without going through the record, he could not make a statement about those questions. In view of this, the accused made an application before the trial Court seeking directions for production of several documents, which are shown at serial Nos. a to k from the bank. That application was rejected by the trial court. Hence, the accused has preferred this application under section 482 Cri. P. C.