JUDGMENT 1. - By this petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 9th January, 2015, whereby application submitted by the petitioner was dismissed followed by dismissal of revision petition. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that an application was filed to seek relevant Income Tax Returns from the year 2010 onwards. It is looking to the statement of the complainant regarding having amount of Rs. 17 lac since the year 2010 and thereupon its payment to the petitioner in the month of November, 2012 with advancement of cheque by the petitioner. The non-petitioner-complainant had no capacity to advance such a huge amount in the month of November, 2012. The application aforesaid was dismissed ignoring the fact that petitioner has right of defence, thus rightly maintained the application. A reference of judgment of Apex Court in the case of K. Subramani v. K. Damodar Naidu, reported in 2015 (1) WLC (SC) Criminal 135 has been given. 3. Learned counsel for non-petitioner-complainant has opposed the petition. He submits that relevant Income Tax Returns have already been filed. Only to delay the proceedings, application was filed. The accused was given 20 chances to cross-examine the witness. The aforesaid shows conduct of the petitioner. The court below took notice of overall facts while dismissing the application. The relevant period in the instant case is November, 2012. The petitioner has already submitted Income Tax Return of the said period. It has been marked as Exhibit D-3, hence can be relied by the petitioner. 4. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. An application submitted by the petitioner has been decided by passing a detailed order. A challenge to the order of the trial court was made before the revisional court and it was decided by a detailed order. It was found that the required documents have already been filed, yet to delay the proceedings, application has been submitted. It is after taking 20 chances to cross-examine the witness. In the facts and circumstances, dismissal of the application cannot be said to be illegal. The judgment of Apex Court in the case of K. Subramani (supra) has been referred but facts of the case are distinguishable. It is after taking 20 chances to cross-examine the witness. In the facts and circumstances, dismissal of the application cannot be said to be illegal. The judgment of Apex Court in the case of K. Subramani (supra) has been referred but facts of the case are distinguishable. In the instant case, Income Tax Returns have already been submitted to the extent it is relevant, hence judgment of Apex Court in the case of K. Subramani (supra) does not apply to the facts of this case. 6. After taking into consideration overall facts, I do not find any reason to cause interference in the impugned order. The petition is accordingly dismissed.Petition Dismissed. *******