JUDGMENT 1. - This petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 14.7.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.3, Jaipur city, Jaipur in Criminal Revision No. 33 of 2010, Krishna Gopal v. Lokesh Kumar and that of the order dated 24.4.2010 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.8, Jaipur city, Jaipur. 2. Necessary facts for the disposal of the present petition are that the accused petitioner is facing trial before the learned trial court and an application under section 311 Cr.P.C. was moved by him to recall the complainant of the case for the purpose of conducting cross-examination on his affidavit. The learned trial court vide its order dated 24.4.2010 rejected the application. The revision petition preferred before the learned revisional court against the said order was dismissed vide order dated 14.7.2010. Hence, the present petition has been filed. 3. It has been the contention of the learned counsel that both the courts below have committed illegality in not considering the fact that it was essential, in the interest of justice, to allow the application moved by the petitioner under section 311 Cr.P.C. 4. I have considered the submissions made before me. 5. It appears that a complaint was filed under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and in that complaint affidavit of the complainant was filed on 8.8.2010. Thereafter, opportunity was provided to the petitioner to cross-examine the complainant on 3.10.2008, 8.1.2009, 18.3.2009, 8.5.2009, 21.7.2009 and 9.9.2009 but for one reason or the other, the cross-examination could not take place on the affidavit of the complainant. On 13.10.2009, the accused did not appear in the court, therefore, when he appeared in the court on 29.1.2010 again he was provided with an opportunity to cross-examine the complainant but he failed to do so and right to cross-examine was closed. Again the prayer was made by the petitioner that in the interest of justice he should be allowed to cross-examine the complainant. The court provided opportunity and fixed the case on 11.2.2010 on payment of cost of Rs. 700/- but on behalf of the petitioner inspite of opportunity provided to him, the complainant was not cross-examined on affidavit. In the above circumstances, finally on 10.4.2010 the opportunity to cross-examine the complainant was closed by the court. The court provided opportunity and fixed the case on 11.2.2010 on payment of cost of Rs. 700/- but on behalf of the petitioner inspite of opportunity provided to him, the complainant was not cross-examined on affidavit. In the above circumstances, finally on 10.4.2010 the opportunity to cross-examine the complainant was closed by the court. Again an application was moved to recall the witness for conducting cross-examination on 24.4.2010 which was rejected. In the above discussed position, it appears that not only on one occasion but on several occasions the opportunity was given to the petitioner to complete cross-examination but he failed to do so, therefore, I do not find any reason that in this case the petition filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. should be allowed. The court had no option but to close the evidence because for last many years, the matter is pending consideration before the trial court. I do not find any substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 6. In the result, this misc. petition is dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******