Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 742 (ALL)

Amarnath v. State of U. P.

2016-03-01

OM PRAKASH VII

body2016
JUDGMENT Om Prakash-VII,J. This criminal revision has been directed against the order dated 6.11.2015 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Varanasi in complaint case no. 416 of 2009 under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act, P.S. Lanka, District Varanasi whereby the application under Section 311 CrPC has been rejected. 2. Heard Shri Ankit Kapoor, learned counsel for the revisionist as well as the learned AGA appearing for the State and perused the record. 3. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that some new fact has been disclosed by the witness but cross-examination on that point could not be done. It was further submitted that details of new cheques have not been made by the witness. Therefore, it is necessary to put question from the witness to make it clear. The court below illegally rejected the application on insufficient ground. If the revisionist is not permitted to re-cross examine the witness on the point mentioned in the application, irreparable loss would be caused to him. 4. On the other hand, learned AGA submitted that the trial is at the stage of final argument and the applicant has been given sufficient opportunity for cross-examination. If the details of the cheque, as disclosed in the application under Section 311 CrPC, was not made by the witness in his statement, certainly this point may be raised by the revisionist at the stage of final argument. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. 5. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the entire record. 6. A perusal of the record shows that the application moved by the revisionist under Section 311 CrPC has been rejected observing that sufficient opportunity was given to the revisionist and that question may be raised during the course of final argument. The trial is at the stage of final argument. 7. If the observations made by the concerned Magistrate in the impunged order dated 6.11.2015 are taken into consideration in consonance with the facts and evidence of the present matter and also the stage of the trial, in the opinion of the Court, the order passed by the concerned Magistrate cannot be said to be illegal. Hence, no case is made out to invoke inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC in the matter. Hence, no case is made out to invoke inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC in the matter. The application being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed.