IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 223 of 2011 Pallav Gupta ……… Applicant. Versus State of Uttarakhand & another ……… Respondents. Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Nandan Arya, Asst. Government Advocate for the State / respondent No. 1. BARIN GHOSH, C.J. (ORAL) In course of examination of the prosecution witness, a question was asked, whether the witness is an income-tax assessee. The answer was ‘yes’. The next question was what is the amount of income shown in the return. The answer was ‘Rs. 1,50,000/-’. Soon thereafter, an application was filed for summoning the income-tax records from the Income Tax Department. In the application, it was not indicated what relevance those have in regard to the examination of the said witness. On that ground, the said application has been rejected. Against that, the present proceeding has been initiated. 2. Inasmuch as the relevance of those documents have not been indicated, there was no fault on the part of the Magistrate in not conceding to the prayer made therein. 3. The Application, accordingly, fails and the same is dismissed. (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 11.03.2011 G