1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. JUDGMENT Smt. Vidhi Jain Vs. State of Rajasthan & anr. SB CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.1736/2010. Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. DATE OF ORDER: 1st September, 2010. PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P. PATHAK Mr. Mohd. Anees for the petitioner. Mr. Paresh Choudhary PP for the State. BY THE COURT:- By this petition filed under section 482 Cr.P.C., challenge has been made to the order dated 5th March, 2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.4, Jaipur city, Jaipur in Criminal Revision No.13/2010 by which the revision petition was dismissed and the order dated 5th October, 2009 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.7, Jaipur city, Jaipur in Case No.1540/2007 has been up-held. Brief facts for the disposal of the present petition are that respondent no.2- Sunil Singh Rathore filed a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (here-in-after to be referred in short as, 'the Act') before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.7, Jaipur city, Jaipur. After providing 2 several opportunities to the petitioner his right to cross-examine the complainant on affidavit evidence was closed and the application moved in this behalf was rejected on 5th October, 2009. The petitioner having felt aggrieved preferred a revision petition and the revisional court up-held the order passed by the trial court and dismissed the revision petition on 5th March, 2010. Hence, the present misc. petition has been filed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned public prosecutor for the State. It has been submitted by the learned counsel that proper opportunity to cross-examine was not afforded, therefore, the order passed by the trial court requires to be set aside and opportunity is required to be given to the petitioner to cross- examine the complainant. It is also contended that the learned revisional court has also not properly appreciated the matter. Learned public prosecutor has opposed the submissions. I have carefully considered the submissions made before me and also perused the impugned orders. It is to be seen that an application under section 311 Cr.P.C. was moved before the learned trial court. It appears that the affidavit was filed by the complainant in the trial court on 18.11.2008. Thereafter, 8.12.2008, 6.1.2009, 18.2.2009 and 17.4.2009, opportunity to cross examine the complainant was given but no cross-examination could be conducted and the matter 3 was adjourned. Again the matter was fixed for examination of witness on 22.5.2009. Again adjournment was sought which was given on payment of cost of Rs.500/-. Thereafter, last opportunity was given on 7.8.2009 but since the complainant was not cross- examined on that date also, therefore, right to cross-examination was closed. It appears that several opportunities were given to the petitioner. Learned trial court in the above facts and circumstances of the case has rightly rejected the application moved under section 311 Cr.P.C. and the learned revisional court has also after application of mind dismissed the revision petition. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial court has committed illegality in rejecting the application moved by the petitioner under section 311 Cr.P.C. is not liable to be accepted in view of the reasons stated in the impugned order passed by the learned trial court. This petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. In the result, this misc. petition stands dismissed. (S.P. PATHAK),J BBLM