5) As per the record, particularly from P.W-1’s evidence with reference to Ex.P-1 to P-7, in the cross-examination of P.W-1 by the accused, he deposed that he obtained a receipt from the accused at the time of giving the cash and the same not filed. It is in fact the receipt proposed to be exhibited is the same. A perusal of the receipt as well as the undertaking letter shows the accused P.Amarendhar executed mentioning as M.D of said entity. The entity whether proprietary concern or partnership firm or a company, not before the Court to decide by production of document; but for if at all to contend from reference as M.D to mean Managing Director if any of an entity. Needless to say, if a proprietary concern doing business in that name and style, it is not a different entity to add being one and same person and array of him is suffice, if Company or Firm, then whether the non-impleading the entity is fatal or not is a matter to decide after full dressed trial and thus premature to decide now. Even from such contention of accused, the marking can be subject to objection and proof to decide ultimately as laid down by the Apex Court in Bipin Santilal Panchal V. State of Gujara t[1] . Thus, the impugned order of the Magistrate dismissing the Crl.M.P.No.1267 of 2013 on that ground is unsustainable. Accordingly, the point No.1 for consideration is answered.
