The court emphasized the importance of making efforts to obtain crucial evidence and highlighted the bar on filing a second revision petition under Section 397(3) Cr.P.C.

JUDGMENT

1. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 18.01.2020 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gharsana, District Sri Ganganagar (hereinafter referred to be as 'the revisional court'), whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

2. The aforesaid revision petition was preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 13.02.2019 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Gharsana (hereinafter to be referred as 'the trial court') in Case No.392/2015, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 91 Cr.P.C. has been dismissed.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant has lodged a complaint before the trial court against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the NI Act) alleging that the petitioner took a loan from the complainant and in lieu of that, a cheque No.527387 was given to him, however, when the complainant produced the said cheque before the concerned bank, the same was dishonored. It is also alleged by the complainant that a notice was issued by him to the petitioner, which was duly served upon him, but no reply to the said notice was given by the petitioner.

4. The learned trial court while taking cognizance against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act has read over the statement of charges to the petitioner on 30.03.2016, after that the evidence of the complainant has been completed and at this stage, the petitioner has moved an application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to summon the file from the Finance Company i.e. Cholamandalam, Gharsana with regard to the loan given to the petitioner for purchasing a tractor.

5. It was contended by the petitioner before the trial court that the petitioner has purchased a tractor from the complainant, who was having sub dealership of the said tractor. It is argued that at the time of purchasing the said tractor, the complainant-Sub Dealer has facilitated loan to the petitioner through Cholamandalam Finance Company and at that time, he gave seven cheques to the complainant numbering 527381 to 527387. It is further argued by the petitioner before the trial court that though the petitioner has already repaid the said loan, but the complainant has misused one of the cheques, out of those seven cheques, handed over by him and, therefore, it is necessary to summon the said loan file from the Cholamandalam Finance Company, in which, the petitioner has deposited the aforementioned cheques.

6. The learned trial court after hearing the counsel for the parties has dismissed the said application while observing that the petitioner has failed to satisfy that he has made efforts to obtain the copy of the said file from the Cholamandalama Finance Company. It is also observed by the trial court that the petitioner has never raised any objection to the notice given by the complainant to him and, therefore, the prayer of the petitioner to summon the loan file from Cholamandalam Finance Company cannot be granted. The trial court has further observed that the petitioner is free to take this plea during his defence and to prove the same while giving his evidence.

7. The revisional court has also taken into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and observed that the petitioner did not make any effort to obtain the loan file from the Cholamandalam Finance Company and he has filed the application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. with a delay, therefore, there is no ambiguity in the order passed by the trial court.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the trial court as well the revisional court have grossly erred in passing the impugned orders. It is further submitted that the loan file of the Cholamandalam Finance Company is necessary for the purpose of trial pending against the petitioner as he has come out with a specific case that the cheque in