Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 821 (RAJ)

Jagdish Prasad v. State of Rajasthan

2016-06-02

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2016
ORDER : Vijay Bishnoi, J. 1. This Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 18.03.2016 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Jaitaran, District Pali (hereinafter referred to as 'the revisional court') in Criminal Revision Petition No. 65/2015, whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. The said revision petition was preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 27.10.2015 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaitaran, District Pali (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Criminal Case No. 302/2007, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. with the request to recall the complainant for further evidence has been rejected. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is pending against the petitioner, wherein the recording of statements of complainant started on 23.07.2011 and ultimately completed on 06.08.2015. In between several opportunities were granted to the accused petitioner to cross-examine him. Thereafter, the statements of petitioner was recorded on 18.09.2015 and he was granted several opportunities to produce evidence in defence. After seeking several opportunities to produce evidence in defence the petitioner had moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. before the trial court with a prayer to recall the complainant for recording his further evidence. 3. The trial court, after taking into consideration the above noted facts and circumstances of the case, rejected the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. while observing that the petitioner moved the said application with the intention to delay the trial of the case. 4. The revisional court also, after taking into consideration the above noted facts and circumstances of the case, refused to interfere with the order dated 27.10.2015 passed by the trial court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in fact the complainant is in habit of initiating proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act against various persons and when the petitioner came to know about this fact, he has obtained certified copies of the said complaints filed by the complainant against various persons and after obtaining the same he has moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling of the complainant for recording further evidence. However, the trial court without taking into consideration this fact has dismissed the said application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C., therefore, the order passed by the trial court is illegal and liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued that the revisional court has also not taken into consideration this aspect of the matter and, therefore, the order dated 18.03.2016 passed by the revisional court is also liable to be set aside. 6. In support of the above submissions learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decisions of this Court rendered in Nitesh v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2012 (2) RCC (Raj.) 756 and Ramesh Kanojiya v. State of Rajasthan & Another, reported in 2015 (3) WLN 158 (Raj.). 7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned orders passed by the courts below. 8. In the present case, the examination of the complainant was started in the year 2011 and concluded in the year 2015 and in between several opportunities were granted to the petitioner for cross-examination of the complainant and he was cross-examined on several occasions by the petitioner. Thereafter, the statements of the petitioner were recorded on 18.09.2015 and after that the petitioner sought several opportunities to produce the evidence in defence, however, the petitioner did not produce any defence evidence and moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. with a prayer for recalling the complainant. 9. From the above noted fact, it is clear that the action of the petitioner of filing an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is nothing but an attempt to delay the trial of the case pending against him. The judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioner are quite distinguishable on facts and, hence, are not applicable in the present case. 10. Looking to the conduct of petitioner of moving unnecessary application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. before the trial court with the intention to delay the trial, this Court deems it proper to dismiss the present Criminal Misc. Petition. 11. Hence, this Criminal Misc. Petition is dismissed. Stay petition also stands dismissed.