1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR S.B. Crl. Miscellaneous Petition No.380/2010 (Manish Saraswat Vs. Neeraj Sharma & Anr.) Date of Order : 23.03.2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI Mr.Rahul Kumar, for the petitioners. Mr.Laxman Meena, PP. Mr.Amit Singh Shekhawat, for the respondent No.1. By the Court: By this petition, a challenge has been made to the order dated 20.01.2010 passed by the trial Court so as the order dated 05.02.2010 passed by the Revisional Court. It is a case where petitioner made an application with the prayer that he was cross examined in reference to the various documents, though were not even exhibited as per the provisions of law. It was prayed that part of the cross examination cannot be read, thus petitioner's statement should be recorded afresh. The prayer so made by the petitioner was rejected by the trial Court so as by the Revisional Court. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner's application was under Section 31(A)(B) of the General Rules (Criminal) 1980 read with provisions of Evidence Act. Unless the document is marked as exhibit in accordance to the 2 provisions of law, it cannot be read in evidence. Since a document is not marked as exhibit, no cross examination can be made from the accused in reference to those documents. The aforesaid aspect has been ignored by the Court below. On the other hand, it is stated that petitioner never raised an objection to the aforesaid when he was cross examined. It is only with the view to delay the matter, the application was belatedly filed. The documents were shown as exhibit while filing the affidavit and it was even requested to the Court to formally mark as exhibits, thus so far as the complainant-non-petitioner is concerned, he is not at fault. It is alternatively prayed that if the petition is allowed, then the non-petitioner may be given liberty to make an application before the Court below to get the documents marked as exhibits based on the affidavit already filed and thereupon, the accused's evidence may be recorded afresh. I have considered submissions made by the parties and scanned the matter carefully. From the facts, it is coming out that though the documents were shown to be exhibited while filing the affidavit by the complainant, however, not marked as exhibit in the manner provided under the provisions of law. In view of the aforesaid, the petitioner could not be examined in reference to those documents, which were not exhibited in the manner indicated above. In view of the above, the petitioner's application should 3 have been allowed by the Courts below. At this stage, learned counsel for the non- petitioner has agreed that the orders may be set aside and the petitioner may be given chance to make his statement afresh but a further liberty has been sought to make an application to get the documents exhibited. In view of the aforesaid, I am inclined to quash and set aside the impugned orders herein and accordingly, the same are quashed and set aside. The petitioner's statement is to be recorded afresh with liberty to the non-petitioner to cross examine him. The non-petitioner-complainant would also be at liberty to make an application to get documents exhibited in the manner provided under provisions of law. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the criminal miscellaneous petition is disposed of. (M.N. BHANDARI),J. Preety Item NO.S-16