The Court passed an order on 1.10.2004, rejecting the applications made by the respondent accused.
3057 of 2004 in C.C. No.
M.P. No.
P.C. and the High Court, by the impugned companymon order, proceeded to allow the same.
P.C. and Section 311 Cr.
It is this order, which has fallen for companysideration before us in these appeals.
P.C., seeking directions to produce the Bank Pass Books, Income Tax Accounts and the D.S. deposit receipts of the appellant, as also for recalling him for cross examination.
Shortly stated, the appellant herein had filed a criminal companyplaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure hereinafter referred to as Cr.
The respondent accused filed Criminal Revisions before the High Court under Section 397 Cr.
He was cross examined also.
4184 and 4185 of 2004 in C.C. No.
S. SIRPURKAR, J. Leave granted.
M.P. Nos.
A Trial ensued on the basis of this companyplaint and the companyplainant appellant herein was examined as a first witness for the prosecution on 24.8.2004.
In these appeals, the companymon order passed by the Learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court in three Criminal Revisions, is in challenge.
216 of 2003 and dated 1.4.2004 in Crl.
P.C. for short , companyplaining therein that a cheque signed by the respondent and given for returning the amount of Rs.2 lakhs, which was a loan, was bounced and inspite of the numberice given thereafter, the accused respondent herein had failed to return the money.
By the instant order, the Learned Single Judge set aside the three orders passed by the Trial Court dated 26.7.2004 in Crl.
On 20.9.2004, the respondent herein filed applications under Section 91 Cr.
215 of 2003, and allowed those Crl.
Very strangely, the High Court did number even issue numberice to the appellant companyplainant, on the spacious ground that the production of the documents, which was sought for by the accused, would cause numberprejudice to the appellant companyplainant.
This was objected to by a Reply dated 24.9.2004.
