1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B.CRIMINAL MISC.PETITION NO.867/2009 (Niranjan Singh Parihar Vs. Sagar Maini & Anr.) S.B.CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C. ***** DATE OF ORDER : 22nd MAY, 2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.P.PATHAK Mr.Sajid Ali, for the petitioner Mr.Bhavnish Kumawat, Public Prosecutor BY THE COURT: This criminal misc. petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 19.1.2009 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST) Prevention of Atrocities Act Cases, Kota in Revision Petition No.5/2009, whereby the order passed by the trial court dated 20.11.2008 has been upheld. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present petition are that non-petitioner Sagar Maini filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner for the reason that the cheque issued by the petitioner could not be encashed. Evidence of both sides was recorded. The matter was kept pending for recording defence evidence. The trial court allowed the petitioner to lead defence evidence. The matter was kept pending for recording statements 2 of two defence witnesses and in relation to third witness it was reported that he had died. Thereafter several dates was given to lead further evidence and petitioner was also allowed to appear as a witness in his defence but despite giving several opportunities the petitioner did not appear as witness, therefore, defence evidence was closed by the trial court vide its order dated 20.11.2008. The aforesaid order was challenged in the revision petition but without any success. Hence this petition has been filed. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since one of the witness could not be examined as he died, therefore, it became essential for the petitioner to lead further evidence in the matter and the court did not consider properly this aspect of the matter. It is also contended that petitioner wanted to produce himself as a witness in the court and that aspect of the matter has also not been considered. It is contended that in fact cheque was not issued by the petitioner for any debt but it was in relation to the security for the amount of Rs.50,000/-. It is submitted that a blank stamp was also given to Shri Sagar Maini as security for the amount taken and thereafter the petitioner gave amount of Rs.50,000/- to Shri Sagar Maini but the cheque was not returned with the plea that it was lost. It is contended that all these aspects of the matter are important and an opportunity was required to be given to the petitioner. 3 I have considered the submissions made before me and perused the impugned order. It appears that this matter is pending for years before the trial court. The petitioner was given ample opportunity to lead defence evidence. Out of three witnesses, the petitioner could get examined two witnesses and witness number three had died and therefore his statement could not be recorded. As regards defence is concerned, the complainant and other witnesses have already been examined. It also appears from the order of the trial court that petitioner was also granted several opportunities to produce himself as a witness in the case in his defence but despite giving adequate opportunities, he did not appear. In the above circumstances, the defence evidence was closed. The order passed in this regard dated 20.11.2008 was challenged in revision petition and the revisional court found that several opportunities were given to the petitioner to lead evidence but for one reason or the other petitioner wanted to delay the matter as he was not interested in the final outcome of the case. Therefore, considering all the facts the revisional court dismissed the revision petition. The contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the facts and circumstances of the case, are not tenable for the reason that entire evidence in the case has been recorded. Defence evidence has also been produced and the court after giving adequate opportunities to the petitioner in this regard closed the defence evidence. Therefore, I do not find reason to exercise the powers vested in 4 the court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to set aside the orders passed by the courts below. The petition being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. Consequently, the petition stands dismissed. (S.P.PATHAK) J. BKS/-