Ishwar Singh Rathore @APPELLANT@Hash State of Rajasthan & Ors.

This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 17.5.2018 passed by the

Additional Sessions Judge No.4, Jodhpur Metropolitan (for short ‘the revisional court’) whereby a criminal revision petition filed by the petitioner

has been dismissed.Â

The said revision petition was filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 9.4.2018 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate (NI Act

Cases) No.2, Jodhpur (for short hereinafter ‘trial court’) whereby it has exhibited a receipt submitted by the respondent No.2 as Ex.P/7 and

closed the opportunity of the petitioner to cross-examine him.

The petitioner is facing trial for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act wherein the respondent No.2 is a

complainant. During the course of crossexamination of the respondent No.2, the petitioner asked a question about receipt to demonstrate that he

gave him a loan of Rs.6,00,000/-, to which the respondent No.2 had answered that the receipt is at home and he would produce the same before the

Court. At this stage, the learned trial court had noted that the cross-examination of the respondent No.2 is reserved to the extent of the said receipt,

if the same is produced by him.Â

Later on the respondent No.2 had produced the said receipt and the trial court marked it as Ex.P/7 and asked the petitioner to cross-examine him only

to the extent of the said receipt. The petitioner refused to cross-examine the respondent No.2 only to the extent of said receipt and insisted to

crossexamine him on some other points too. The trial court did not permit the petitioner to cross-examine the respondent No.2 on the point other

than the receipt which is marked as Ex.P/7 and thereafter closed the opportunity of the petitioner to crossexamine the respondent No.2.

Being aggrieved with the same, the petitioner had preferred a revision petition before the revisional court, however, the revisional court has dismissed

the revision petition while observing that earlier the trial court had reserved the right of the petitioner to cross-examine the respondent No.2 only to the

extent of receipt and, therefore, it has not committed any illegality in closing the opportunity of the petitioner to cross-examine the respondent No.2 on

other points.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having gone through the cross-examination of the respondent No.2 and the note appended by

the trial court, I do not find any illegality in the action of the trial court of exhibiting the receipt as Ex.P/7 and of closing the opportunity of the petitioner

to crossexamine the respondent No.2.Â

Hence, this criminal misc. petition is dismissed. The stay petition is also dismissed.