1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER SB Cr Revision Petition No. 405/2010 Bharat Gupta Vs The State of Rajasthan & anr 20.7.2010 HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MN BHANDARI Miss Gayatri Rathore - for the petitioner Mr Laxman Meena, PP – for the State Mr Anil Upman – for respondent No.2 BY THE COURT: Aggrieved by the order dated 22.3.2010 this revision petition has been filed. It is a case where complaint was filed under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. During pendency of trial, petitioner made applications for production of three witnesses. Aforesaid application was rejected. Aggrieved by the order, a criminal misc petition was filed before the High Court. Said petition was dismissed by this court on 18.5.2009. The court came to the conclusion that matter has been kept for final arguments on 20.5.2009 therefore, no case is made out for calling interference of the High Court. Petitioner was however given liberty to take all objections, which are available to him, at the appropriate stage. After dismissal of criminal misc petition by the High Court on 18.5.2009, on 20.5.2009 the trial court passed another 2 order when similar application moved under section 311 CrPC and 391 CrPC. Court below came to the conclusion that when challenge to the earlier order could not sustain before the High Court and the only liberty given by the High Court was to raise objections but not to maintain the application. Accordingly, accommodating petitioner for a day, the matter was ordered to be listed on the next date i.e. 21.5.2009. The matter was thereafter decided and the case is pending consideration in the appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per provisions of CrPC, the petitioner was having a right to file an application for seeking production of documents so as the witnesses. Since that liberty exists as per law, petitioner rightly filed the application. This is more so when one document could be procured by petitioner during pendency of the appeal only and the document was issued by the Reserve Bank of India thus appellate court ought to have allowed the application. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2, on the other hand, submits that when earlier application was dismissed by the trial court and the order was thereupon confirmed by the High Court, the same issue cannot be taken up by the petitioner again at the appellate stage otherwise it would amount review of the order of the High Court, which is not permissible. 3 I have considered rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. Taking into consideration the fact that when initially application under section 311 CrPC was filed it was dismissed on 2.8.2008. Revision Petition was maintained before the ADJ and the same was dismissed on 19.8.2008. The order passed by the court below attained finality, when High Court dismissed the revision petition, challenging those orders. In the light of the aforesaid, petitioner could not have maintained application under section 311 CrPC at the stage of appeal when the issue stood concluded by the High Court. The position in regard to the application under section 391 CrPC is also same. Taking the aforesaid into consideration, the court below passed the impugned order. I do not find any error therein. In view of the discussion made above, the revision petition is found devoid of merit, hence, the same is dismissed. (MN Bhandari), J. bnsharma