1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER S.B.CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 682/2007 (Amit Suthar V/s State of Rajasthan) Date of Order : 01/08/2007 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Mr. Shambhoo Singh, for the petitioner. Mr. V.R.Mehta, public prosecutor for the State. BY THE COURT:- By the instant criminal revision petition under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has challenged the order dated 4.6.2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Dungarpur (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter), whereby the application filed by the petitioner seeking to call the record of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and its two officials-DTO and J.En. namely Jaishanker Suthar and B.L.Mehra with the record. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Carefully gone through the order passed by the trial court and the statement of the accused petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 2 It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the deceased used to send the message through his Mobile No.9413016512 to the petitioner and therefore, the message sent by the deceased to the petitioner are relevant which can only be ascertained from the sim of telephone in this behalf from the BSNL authorities. In the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the petitioner stated that the deceased used to threaten him by sending SMS. The petitioner has not produced his own mobile handset with its sim showing what type of messages he received from the deceased whether those messages are of any relevance or a threatening to the petitioner. The petitioner is making an attempt to make a roving inquiry from the department of BSNL without there being any specific information as to when and what messages he has received. The best evidence if at all available is messages alleged to have been received by the petitioner himself on his mobile handset which the petitioner has not even produced before the trial court. In the circumstances, therefore, in my view, the trial court was justified in dismissing the application. No case for interference in revisional jurisdiction is made out. The revision petition is therefore, dismissed. (H.R.PANWAR),J. rp