JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner on 8.1.2014 and was listed before the Court on 27.1.2014 and on that day, nobody was present on behalf of the petitioner even in second round, therefore, the matter was adjourned for two weeks. It is noticed that after 27.1.2014, the matter was listed in the Court on several occasions, however, none was present on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Today also, even in second round, none is present on behalf of the petitioner. 3. This criminal misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 30.11.2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Sessions Judge No.4, Jodhpur Metropolitan (hereinafter referred to as 'the revisional court') whereby the revisional court has dismissed the criminal revision petition filed by the petitioner and affirmed the order dated 6.3.2013 passed by the Additional Metropolitan Magistrate (NI Act Cases) No.1, Jodhpur Metropolitan (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. with the prayer for summoning Vice President of Binani Cement Company for examining him as witness was rejected. 4. Learned trial court has observed that the cheque in question, issued by the petitioner, was used by the complainant Gotam Jain and not by the Binani Cement Company and, therefore, there is no requirement of calling representative of the said company for the purpose of giving its evidence. Learned trial court has also observed that statements of the petitioner in defence were recorded on 27th of July, 2012 and after seven months, the petitioner had moved the said application. After observing this, the trial court had granted one last opportunity to the petitioner to produce his defence evidence, and thereafter the trial court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. 5. Being aggrieved with the order passed by the trial court, the petitioner preferred a revision petition, however, the revisional court has also dismissed the revision petition while affirming the order passed by the trial court. After going through the impugned orders, this Court is of the opinion that the trial court as well as the revisional court have not committed any illegality in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. 6. After going through the impugned orders, this Court is of the opinion that the trial court as well as the revisional court have not committed any illegality in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. 6. In view of the fact that the petitioner had issued a cheque in favour of respondent Gotam Jain and not in favour of Binani Cement Company, this Court is of the opinion that there is no requirement of recording evidence of representative of Binani Cement Company. 7. Hence, there is no force in this criminal misc. petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed. The stay petition is also dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******