JUDGMENT 1. - Aggrieved by the order dated 26.05.2008 so as the order dated 25.11.2009, this miscellaneous petition has been filed. 2. It is submitted that petitioner made an application for calling certain records as well as witness Gopi Kishan Chhaparwal, however, the said application was rejected by the trial Court and the revisions petition so preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed. Out of documents so summoned, one was regarding payment towards excise duty and other income tax returns of the non-petitioner-complainant. It is mentioned that marble can be sold only after paying excise duty, thus as to whether the sale transaction took place between the parties or not, aforesaid documents is relevant. The income tax returns were called to look into as to whether the amount of Cheque is shown to be outstanding towards petitioner or not. The Court below dismissed the application without applying its mind and thereby, rejected the prayer of the petitioner to call the non-petitioner's brother Shri Gopikishan Chhaparwal. 3. Learned counsel for the non-petitioner submits that so far as the prayer to call for the excise duty return is concerned, the non-petitioner is only trader in marble and not a manufacturer. The marble is excise duty paid by the manufacturer. In view of the aforesaid, the excise duty is not paid by the non-petitioner, thus no record exists. The aforesaid record has been summoned to delay matter only. So far as the income tax returns are concerned, it is stated that non-petitioner has already submitted his accounts, which have been marked as P-2, thus nothing more is required. Even if the income tax returns are yet required, it would be produced by the non-petitioner on the next date itself so that no further delay is caused. So far as Gopikishan Chhaparwal is concerned, it is submitted that he has been summoned without showing any reason, thus prayer of the non-petitioner is that the petition may be dismissed. 4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and given my thoughtful consideration. 5. It is a case where Cheque was dishonored, which was issued for payment towards purchase of marble. Since, the dispute has been raised regarding purchase and delivery of marble, the application was moved to summon the relevant documents. The non-petitioner is said to be a trader, thus the excise duty is not paid by the non-petitioner. 5. It is a case where Cheque was dishonored, which was issued for payment towards purchase of marble. Since, the dispute has been raised regarding purchase and delivery of marble, the application was moved to summon the relevant documents. The non-petitioner is said to be a trader, thus the excise duty is not paid by the non-petitioner. In view of the aforesaid, I am not inclined to accept the application to that extent of summoning of documents pertaining to excise duty. So far as the income tax return is concerned, the non-petitioner voluntary accepted for placing those documents on record of the Court below. In view of the aforesaid, the application of the petitioner stands allowed to that extent. It is made clear that income tax returns have been summoned by the petitioner only to see that the amount of Cheque has been shown outstanding or not, thus on summoning of the documents, the same would be treated as part of the record and be considered by the Court below for drawing its conclusion on completion of trial. 6. So far as Gopikishan Chhaparwal is concerned, the petitioner could not satisfy this Court as to why he is required to be summoned. It is mainly contended that he is a person concerned for submission of excise duty returns etc. Since, I have already rejected the prayer for summoning of documents pertaining to excise, Gopikishan Chhaparwal is not required to be summoned. 7. In view of the discussions made above, this petition is allowed in part. 8. In view of the aforesaid, the non-petitioner is directed to submit income tax return of the relevant period before the trial Court and the remaining prayers of the petitioner are rejected.Petition partly allowed *******