( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 671 OF 2009 Asha Dhananjay Kaldante PETITIONER VERSUS Rekha Vishwanath Lahoti and another RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. P.S. Pawar, advocate for the petitioner. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 4th August, 2009] PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner is original accused against whom private complaint case bearing S.T.C. No. 739 of 2005 for offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has been instituted by the respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1 was examined before the trial Court. The cross-examination of the ( 2 ) respondent No.1 was conducted. Therafter, again she was put in the witness box and a part of chief examination was recorded. The petitioner was given opportunity to further cross-examine the respondent No. 1 which she availed. The revision petition was filed by the petitioner to delete the subsequent partof the examination-in-chief on the ground that it was impermissible. The learned Sessions Judge held that there was no order as such which could be revised and there was no provision to entertain the revision petition with a prayer to exclude a part of the examination-in-chief. Consequently, the revision petition was not entertained. 3. Upon hearing learned advocate for the petitioner, I do not find any illegality committed by the revisional Court. The petitioner should have objected when further examination-in-chief was allowed. Moreover, the further examination-in-chief, which is directed after cross-examination was over, comprised of only suggestions and nothing substantial. All the suggestions are denied by the respondent No. ( 3 ) 1/complainant and there is no positive statement as such in that second part of the examination-in-chief. Needless to say, the petitioner is not prejudiced due to such examination-in-chief which was recorded lateron because she was given opportunity to cross-examine the witness. The petitioner is at liberty to argue the impropriety and inadmissibility of such further examination-in-chief and may object consideration thereof before the trial Court. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/CRIWP671-09