JUDGMENT : In S.B. Criminal Misc. Petitions No.1661/2020, 582/2018, 3470/2018, 3471/2018 and 1663/2020: 1. These criminal misc. petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have been preferred claiming the following reliefs: CRLMP No. 1661/2020: “Hence, it is prayed that the Misc. Petition may kindly be allowed and order dated 20.02.2020 quashed and application filed by petitioner under section 91 of Cr.P.C. may kindly be ordered to be allowed.” CRLMP No. 582/2018: “It is therefore most humbly and respectfully prayed that this miscellaneous petition of the petitioner may kindly be allowed and the orders impugned passed by the courts below may be quashed and set aside and the application filed by the petitioner under Section 91 Cr.P.C. may kindly be ordered to be allowed.” CRLMP No.3470/2018: “Hence, it is prayed that the Misc. Petition may kindly be allowed and order dated 27.09.2018 quashed and application filed by petitioner under section 91 Cr.P.C. may kindly be ordered to be allowed.” CRLMP NO.3471/2018: “Hence, it is prayed that the Misc. Petition may kindly be allowed and order dated 27.09.2018 quashed and application filed by petitioner under section 91 Cr.P.C. may kindly be ordered to be allowed.” CRLMP NO.1663/2020: “Hence, it is prayed that the Misc. Petition may kindly be allowed and order dated 20.02.2020 quashed and application filed by petitioner under section 91 of Cr.P.C. may kindly be ordered to be allowed.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court towards the fact that the complainant-private respondent herein had failed to bring on record the Income Tax documents, which would have enabled the learned court below to adjudicate as to whether the demand raised against the cheque in question was justified or not. 2.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the invocation of Section 91 Cr.P.C. was justified in the present case, and thus, ought not to have been refused by the learned trial court, merely because there was an admission on the part of the petitioner to the signatures on the cheque, which was sufficient to bring home the point of preponderance of probabilities and presumption in favour of holder of the cheque. 2.2 Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the income tax return is must before the trial proceeds. 3. 2.2 Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the income tax return is must before the trial proceeds. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the aforementioned proposition on the ground that the same cannot be permitted to be brought in, as the petitioner himself has accepted his signatures on the cheque, and thus, no more proof was required so as to justify bringing of the income tax documents on record. 3.1 Learned counsel for the respondent referred to an earlier judgment of this Court passed in Rajendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.1592/2017, decided, alongwith connected petitions, on 06.09.2017), in which this Court has already held that in case the document is not brought on record, an adverse presumption can be drawn by the court at the appropriate stage, as per Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, and thus, the petitioner would be entitled for an adverse inference at the appropriate stage. 4. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the requirement of the income tax documents was on count of the fact that although the petitioner had admitted the signatures, but the financial transactions between the parties were to be completely proved, and unless they were so proved, the proper adjudication and defence of the petitioner both would suffer. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case, this Court of the firm opinion that the private respondent is free to bring on record the income tax documents at the instance of the petitioner, but in case he refuses to do the same, an adverse inference can be drawn at the appropriate stage by the learned trial court, which has already been held by this Court in the case of Rajendra Singh (supra). Thus, no cause of any interference by this Court is made out in the present petitions. 6. Consequently, the present petitions are dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of. In S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1157/2017 : 1. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following reliefs: “Hence, it is prayed that the Misc. Thus, no cause of any interference by this Court is made out in the present petitions. 6. Consequently, the present petitions are dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of. In S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1157/2017 : 1. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following reliefs: “Hence, it is prayed that the Misc. Petition may kindly be allowed and order dated 27.03.2017 quashed and set aside upto the extend of application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. and one opportunity for cross-examination to complainant-respondent no.2 be given.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that due to being won over, the cross examination could not happen properly, and therefore, one more opportunity ought to be given to call the witness under Section 311 Cr.P.C., so that the lacuna can be filled. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the private respondent, however, opposed the petition. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order passed by the learned trial court is perfectly justified, as in the present case, any exercise under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is not justified, as the cross examination was done properly by the concerned counsel, and by merely making allegations against the counsel, the party cannot be permitted to reopen the cross-examination, once more, by recalling the witnesses. Thus, no cause for making any interference by this Court is made out. 5. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. In S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 3846/2017 : 1. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following reliefs: “Hence, it is prayed that the Misc. Petition may kindly be allowed and order dated 05.10.2017 quashed and set aside and pass appropriate order for sending the disputed cheque to FSL and in cross-examination, clerical mistake may kindly be rectified.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the criminal complaint was filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the private respondent against the present petitioner regarding dishonouring of a cheque, and the present proceedings culminated out of it. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the criminal complaint was filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the private respondent against the present petitioner regarding dishonouring of a cheque, and the present proceedings culminated out of it. 3. The limited submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the statement of PW-1 Brijesh was rendered in the year 2017, in which in the last line, the statement included the names of Roop Lal and Pannalal, wheras instead of Pannalal, the name of Rajendra should have been there, which is merely a clerical error, and ought to be corrected at this stage. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent, however opposes any correction at this belated stage, as the statement in question itself was rendered in the year 2017. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case, this Court is of the opinion that ordinarily, any correction at the belated stage, may adversely impact or delay the proceedings, but looking into the peculiar facts circumstances of the case and the stage thereof, if the name of Pannalal is substituted by the name of Rajendra, in the last line of the deposition made as PW-1 Brijesh, the same would serve the interest of justice, more particularly, when such correction would not result into any harm to either of the parties. 6. In view of the above, the clerical error in question is removed and the present petition is disposed of, while directing that in the last line of the deposition made by PW-1 Brijesh in the year 2017, the name of “Pannalal” shall stand substituted, and shall be read as “Rajendra”. All pending applications also stand disposed of. In S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 82/2018 : 1. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following reliefs: “Hence, it is prayed that the Misc. Petition may kindly be allowed and order dated 15.12.2017 quashed and set aside and also pass appropriate order to send the disputed cheque and other document be sent for FSL. Any other relief which court may think fit be granted in favor of the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the order whereby application under section 340 Cr.P.C. has been rejected by the learned trial court. 3. Any other relief which court may think fit be granted in favor of the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the order whereby application under section 340 Cr.P.C. has been rejected by the learned trial court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the overwriting in the two certified copies of the notice sent by the respondent clearly point out that it is a case where the record has been tampered with by the respondent. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the private respondent however, opposed the petition. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case, this Court finds that though there is an overwriting in the two documents, which are the copies of the notice sent by the respondent, but the record does not give any indication of the record having been manipulated in the court, and at best, can be a correction made by the respondent at the time when the notice was sent to the petitioner. Thus, no cause for making any interference by this Court is made out. 6. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.