JUDGMENT

Arunabha Basu, J.—The revisional application is directed against the order dated 18th January, 2008 passed by the ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, 11th Court, Calcutta in connection with Complaint Case No.1621 of 2007 whereby and where under the ld. Court below refused to admit a question put to the witness being the P.W.1 which runs as follows, “Do you knew they would not pay when you still supply goods”.

2. It is the contention of the ld. Advocate for the petitioner that the ld. Court below by passing an elaborate order refused to record the question and thereby violated the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Guiarat.1 The Hon’ble Apex Court in its three Judges Bench decision took into consideration about archaic practice being followed in the lower courts where elaborate and lengthy arguments are advanced before any evidence is admitted. The resultant delay in conclusion of trial was taken serious note by the Hon’ble Apex Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court prescribed a procedure about admission of evidence and the same is set out below:

“It is an archaic practice that during the evidence-collecting stage, whenever any objection is