IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1102 of 2011 Sandeep Gautam, son of Late Suresh Lal Das, resident of Kari Bazar, Araria, P.S.-Araria, District- Araria, presently residing at 102, Binkeshari Apartment, New Punaichak, P.S.- S.K.Puri, District- Patna, posted as Cluster Head, H.D.F.C. Bank Ltd., Bihar. ………Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Sri R.K.Narayan @ Rajendra Kishore Narayan, son of Late Dinesh Kumar Narayan, House No.8, Road No.3A, P.S.- Patliputra, resident of Mohalla-Mahesh Nagar, District- Patna. -----------Opposite Parties 4. 29.09.2011 The informant-petitioner has preferred this revision application against the order dated 22.07.2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Patna in Gandhi Maidan P.S. Case No.346/2008 by which the prayer of opposite party no.2 to recall Sri Sandip Kumar (P.W.12) has been allowed for cross-examination. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on the written information of the petitioner, the Gandhi Maidan P.S. Case No.346/2008 was registered on 8.11.2008 for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420 and 120B of the I.P.C. against the opposite party no.2 and other officials of the Punjab National Bank for misappropriation of Rs.7.90 crores. The H.D.F.C. Bank Limited, Exhibition Road, Patna has a current account No.0380002100060239 with Punjab National Bank, Exhibition Road, Patna which is 2 equipped with Currency Chest, under the direction of the Reserve Bank of India. The Cash Chest of H.D.F.C. is to be deposited in the Punjab National Bank, Exhibition Road, Patna through the authorized agency dealing in Secured Cash Remittance viz. M/S Securitans India Pvt. Ltd. under the guidelines and directions of the Reserve Bank of India. The details of the prosecution case have been mentioned in Annexure-1 to this petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial of the case is going on and to make delay, the accused filed a petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for the cross-examination of P.W.12, Sandip Kumar. The petition filed by the opposite party no.2 should not have been allowed as the opposite parties have been given opportunity for cross-examination, but opposite party no.2 has declined to cross-examine him on 2.06.2011 on some flimsy grounds, as such, P.W.12 was discharged. Since the opposite party no.2 has declined to cross-examine the P.W.12, the learned Magistrate should not have passed the impugned order recalling P.W.12 for his cross- 3 examination at the instance of the accused-opposite party no.2. The learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has submitted that the impugned order is an interlocutory order, as such, this petition is not maintainable and secondly, the learned trial court has considered and found that P.W.12 Sandip Kumar was the Branch Manager in the year 2002 at H.D.F.C. Bank, Exhibition Road, Patna. During his tenure (Manager-ship), the currency chest was opened at the Punjab National Bank, Exhibition Road, Patna for depositing cash of H.D.F.C. Bank. The evidence of P.W.12 is essential for the just decision of the case, as such; no interference in the impugned order is required by this Court. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the materials on the record, it appears that after hearing argument of both the sides and on perusal of the petition and rejoinder of the parties and other materials available on the record, the learned trial court has considered that the evidence of P.W.12 Sandip Kumar is very essential as he was the Branch Manager during the relevant period and current chest was opened at 4 the Punjab National Bank for depositing cash of the H.D.F.C. Bank during his manager-ship. The learned trial court has considered and found that the evidence of P.W.12 Sandip Kumar is very much essential and material for the just decision of the case, as such; the petition filed by the defence dated 14.06.2011 has been allowed at a cost of Rs.750/- for cross-examination and the office has been directed to issue summons against P.W.12 for his cross-examination. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. This petition is dismissed. V.K. Pandey ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)