Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1891 (RAJ)

Balvinder Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2015-11-16

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2015
JUDGMENT : Sandeep Mehta, J. The petitioner is facing trial in the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate (N.I.Act Cases) No.2, Sri Ganganagar for the offence under section 138 of the N.I.Act. 2. He preferred an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for summoning certain witnesses in defence. The trial court rejected such application by a detailed order dated 7.4.2015. The petitioner challenged the said order by filing a revision which came to be rejected by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Cases), Sri Ganganagar by order dated 30.7.2015. 3. The petitioner has now approached this Court by way of this misc. petition assailing the legality and validity of the above two orders. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent presented for the Court's perusal, the application filed by the petitioner in the trial court under Section 311 Cr.P.C. and submitted that the application was absolutely perfunctory and totally lacking in details. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner after arguing the matter at great length sought liberty to withdraw the misc. petition so as to enable the petitioner to file a fresh and detailed application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the above submission and urges that the trial court has extensively examined the matter and rejected the application under section 311 Cr.P.C. by a well reasoned order dated 7.4.2015 which has also been upheld by Revisional Court by order dated 30.7.2015. He contends that if petitioner is given liberty to move a fresh application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. with the very same prayers, then the trial would be unnecessarily delayed, and therefore, the misc. petition should be dismissed outright. 7. I have heard arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the material available on record. 8. It cannot be gainsaid that the application filed by the petitioner in the trial court under section 311 Cr.P.C. which has been shown to this Court during the course of arguments was absolutely perfunctory and lacks details. Nonetheless, the trial court heard the arguments advanced by the counsel for the petitioner extensively and has given liberty to the petitioner to examine two witnesses at his own level. However, if so advised the petitioner is always at liberty to file a fresh application before the trial court. Nonetheless, the trial court heard the arguments advanced by the counsel for the petitioner extensively and has given liberty to the petitioner to examine two witnesses at his own level. However, if so advised the petitioner is always at liberty to file a fresh application before the trial court. Upon such application being filed, learned trial court shall decide the same according to law without being prejudice by any of the observations made by this Court. The misc. petition is dismissed as not pressed with the above observations. Petition dismissed.