HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 7741/2021

Parminder Sahni Son Of Amarjeet Sahni, Resident Of B-272,

Sushant Lok-1, Gudgaon, Hariyana.

----Petitioner

Versus

Poonia Wines Jaipur A.p.o, Through Member Dayaram Poonia

Son Of Surjaram Poonia, Resident Of A-54, Hanuman Nagar,

Khatipura Road, Jaipur (Raj.)

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Manish Gupta, Adv.

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. Anurag Sharma, Adv. on behalf of

Mr. Sumit Teterwal, Adv.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

Order

17/08/2022

By the instant misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,

petitioner had challenged the order dated 26.10.2021 passed by

Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan-II in Criminal

Revision Petition No.317/2021 by which he dismissed the

aforesaid revision petition and confirmed the order dated

04.10.2021 passed by Special Metropolitan Magistrate (N.I. Act

Cases) No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan-II in Criminal Appeal

No.3252/2013 dismissed the application filed by the petitioner

under Section 254(2), 311, 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

respondent filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable

Instruments Act against the petitioner and other persons. After

completion of evidence, complainant filed an application under

Section 311 and 91 Cr.P.C. that was allowed by the trial court and

(2 of 3)

[CRLMP-7741/2021]

evidence of PW-2 Rakesh Sharma was recorded and bank

statement was exhibited. After that, petitioner had filed an

application under Sections 254(2), 311 and 91 Cr.P.C. before the

trial court to call the Bank Manager in defence evidence but trial

court rejected the said application with observation that petitioner

can examine the defence evidence on his behalf but court would

not call the defence witness. Learned counsel for the petitioner

also submits that revision petition filed by the petitioner was also

dismissed by the revisional court without any cogent reason.

Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that he will file the

summon of Bank Manager before the trial court and trial court is

directed to give one more chance for calling of the witness in his

defence.

Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the

arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and

submitted that petition filed by the petitioner be dismissed.

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned

counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the

respondent.

It is an admitted position that trial court allowed the

application filed by the respondent under Section 311 Cr.P.C. and

recorded the witness of PW-2 Rakesh Kumar. Petitioner wants to

rebut the evidence given by the respondent. So, in my considered

opinion, trial court wrongly rejected the prayer for calling the bank

manager for the evidence.

The Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed by the petitioner is

allowed. Trial court is directed to summon the Bank Manager for

defence evidence.

(3 of 3)

[CRLMP-7741/2021]

Pending application also stands disposed of.

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

Jatin /55