HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 7659/2024 Kuka Khan S/o Shri Allahrakha, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Village Kaklana, Post- Rajgarh, Teh. And Dist. Ajmer (Raj). ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. 2. Madhu Motors Financial Services, Registered Partnership Firm, Through Partner/ Legal Hair Dinesh Garg S/o Late Sh. Ghanshyam Garg, Aged About 40 Years, R/o A.M.C. No. 121/24, Jiyalal Marg, Keshaganj, Ajmer (Raj). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Atul Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 21/01/2025 1. By way of filing of this petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 18.10.2024 passed by the Court Additional Sessions Judge No.4, Ajmer, by which the revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the order dated 21.09.2024 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate, NI Act Cases, No.1, Ajmer has been up held. By passing the order dated 21.09.2024, learned Magistrate has closed the opportunity of cross-examination of the petitioner with the complainant. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is facing trial for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'NI Act') before (2 of 4) [CRLMP-7659/2024] the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, No.4, Ajmer. Counsel submits that when the cross-examination of the complainant was conducted by the petitioner, certain questions were put with regard to deposits in his bank account and immediately thereafter, an application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. was submitted by the petitioner for summoning the statements of bank account details of the statement before the Trial Court. Counsel submits that the said application submitted by the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 07.09.2024. Counsel submits that aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner submitted a revision petition before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No.4, Ajmer by way of filing a revision petition. Counsel submits that when the case was posted on the fateful day, i.e. 21.09.2024, a request was made before the Trial Court to defer the matter for some other day as the revision petition is pending before the Revisional Court. Counsel submits that the case was not deferred and the opportunity of the petitioner for cross-examination with the complainant was closed. Counsel submits that the cross- examination is a right of an accused for conducting a fair trial and the petitioner has been deprived from this opportunity for the reasons stated above. Counsel submits that one last opportunity be granted to the petitioner for the above purpose. 3. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. (3 of 4) [CRLMP-7659/2024] 4. This fact is not in dispute that the petitioner was granted opportunity to cross-examine the complainant and at the time of cross-examination, certain questions were put with regard to the deposits in the bank account of the complainant and immediately thereafter, an application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. was submitted by the petitioner for summoning those bank accounts details before the Trial Court. This fact is not in dispute that the said application filed by the petitioner was rejected and the said order was assailed by the petitioner by way of filing of revision petition. The petitioner made a request before the Trial Court to defer the matter for some other day, as the revision petition filed against the order of rejecting the application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. was pending, but the prayer of the petitioner was declined and the order impugned has been passed and the opportunity of cross- examination of the petitioner was closed. Mere filing a revision petition cannot be a ground to seek time for cross- examination. Looking to the fact that the complaint was pending since 2011, the Trial Court has not committed any error in not granting further time to the petitioner, but at the same time, this fact cannot be ignored that cross- examination is a right of the accused for conducting fair trial. 5. In view of the above, last opportunity is granted to the petitioner subject to payment of cost of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant before the next date. (4 of 4) [CRLMP-7659/2024] 6. The Trial Court is directed to summon the complainant for his cross-examination on a short date. 7. In case, the petitioner fails to pay the cost amount to the complainant before the next date and he fails to cross- examine the complainant on the next date, no further opportunity would be granted to the petitioner and the Trial Court would be at liberty to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. 8. This order has been passed by this Court without issuing notice to the complainant for the reason that the disposal of the said complaint filed by him, which is pending before the Trial Court since 2011, would not be further delayed. Even if, the complainant feels aggrieved by this order, he would be at liberty to move application for recall of this order. 9. With the aforesaid observations, the instant criminal misc. petition stands disposed of. The stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/123