1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPLN) NO. 382 OF 2010 1. SHARAD S/O SHYAMRAOJI JIVTODE R/O SARDAR PATEL WARD, WARORA, TQ. WARORA, DISTT. CHANDRAPUR .. PETITIONER/S VERSUS 1. PANDURANG S/O WADGUJI VAIDYA R/O MALVIYA WARD, NEAR MALVIYA SCHOOL, WARORA, DISTT. CHANDRAPUR .. RESPONDENT/S Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Shri R. S. Kurekar Adv for applicant. Shri M. Anilkumar Adv for respondents. CORAM: C.L. PANGARKAR J. Dated: 23 rd JUNE, 2010. This application under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code is preferred challenging the order passed by the Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision No. 3 of 2010 whereby he confirmed the order passed 2 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class on an application under Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 2. The complainant had filed an application Ex. 130 in Criminal Case No. 674 of 2006 for examining a witness from the Bank. The complainant wanted to examine the said witness in order to show that he had withdrawn certain amount from the account of his wife which has ultimately been paid to the accused. The learned Magistrate after hearing the counsel found that the complainant had filed similar such application for summoning a witness and such applications were filed after the case was thrice closed for judgment. Learned Magistrate found that since earlier application was also dismissed this application could not be granted. 3. Accused therefore filed a revision before the Sessions Judge. Sessions Judge also concurred with the reasons recorded by the Magistrate for rejecting the application. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant on the other hand submits before me that no prejudice will be caused to the accused if complainant is allowed to examine the witness. He submits that the party must be given full opportunity to lead evidence in the matter. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submits that enough opportunity was 3 given to the complainant and similar such application was already rejected and revision was preferred against that order and that has also been rejected and this fact has been suppressed by the present applicant. 5. I have gone through the order passed by the learned Magistrate, particularly the observations made by the learned Magistrate that on three occasions the case was closed for judgment and on every occasion the complainant filed one or the other application and the matter was required to be adjourned. The further observation of the learned Magistrate goes to show that the complainant had filed similar application being Ex. 104 for summoning the witness and that was rejected by the Court. A revision was preferred before the Sessions Judge being Revision No. 90 of 2009 and that has also been dismissed. It is therefore, clear that a similar application with similar prayer has been rejected by the Court. In the circumstances there is no reason for interfering with the order passed by the Courts below. Order does not suffer from any illegality or impropriety. Criminal Application is dismissed. JUDGE svk 4 5 6 7