Sandeep Mehta, J. - (1.) The instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-complainant challenging the order dated 20.3.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur in Criminal Appeal No. 100 of 2004, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge whilst allowing the appeal filed by the respondent No. 2, set aside the judgment dated 17.3.2004 passed by the ACJM (Economic Offences), Jodhpur convicting the respondent No. 2 for the offence under Section 138 of the Neotiable Instruments Act. The appellate Court, by the impugned order, accepted the appeal filed by the respondent No. 2 and has remanded the matter back to the Trial Court for permitting the respondent No. 2 the right of further cross-examination of the complainant and also permitting him to summon certain other witnesses and documents by way of offence.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant submits that before- the appellate Court, there was no prayer made on behalf of the accused that he desired to further cross-examine the complainant, thus, the learned appellate Court has committed grave error in accepting the appeal filed by the accused. He further argues that the accused himself closed the cross-examination of the complainant after subjecting him to certain questions and therefore, at a subsequent stage i.e., after his conviction, he could not have been permitted to say that he was deprived of an opportunity of cross-examination in the Trial Court. Thus, it is argued that the order of the Appellate Court amounts to abuse of the process of the Court and deserves to be quashed.
(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 submits that during the course of the trial itself, the accused-respondent had prayed for being permitted to further cross-examine the complainant on 4.3.2004 but the said prayer was turned down without any justification. Therefore, he submits that the Appellate Court's judgment does not call for any interference. He further submits that the prayer for further cross-examination was made for the reason that the accused came across certain other documents, which were relevant and germane for providing an opportunity of proper defence to the accused and, therefore, the relief which has been granted by the appellate Court is justified.;