Vijay Bishnoi, J. - (1.) THIS criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 16.07.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 3, Jodhpur Metropolitan (hereinafter referred to as 'the revisional court') in Criminal Revision Petition No. 12/2013, whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. The above mentioned revision petition was filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 09.10.2012 passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Criminal Case No. 1033/2012, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 91 Cr.P.C. in the pending proceedings against him under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act has been dismissed.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the complainant -respondent has initiated the proceedings against the petitioner under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act while alleging that the petitioner borrowed a sum Rs. 1,40,000/ - from him and in lieu of payment of the said loan, the petitioner issued two cheques to him. It is alleged that when the said cheques were presented in the bank, the same were not honoured by the bank while mentioning a remark that Account Not Activated. A notice sent by the complainant was duly received by the petitioner, however, the petitioner neither replied to the notice nor made payment. During the trial, the statements of the complainant and one another prosecution witness have been recorded on 01.07.2009 and 03.08.2009. However, on 15.02.2010, learned counsel for the petitioner had moved an application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. and prayed for summoning a copy of the railway tender No. 184 pertaining to year 2003 -2004, the copy of the agreement entered into between the petitioner and the complainant -respondent, and the income tax returns of the complainant -respondent. The prayer of the petitioner for summoning the above mentioned documents was opposed by the complainant -respondent.
(3.) THE trial court after hearing both the parties has rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Section 91 Cr.P.C. while observing that the documents sought to be summoned by the petitioner are neither necessary nor desirable for the purpose of trial of the case. The trial court has observed that the facts that the complainant was assigned contract by the Railways on what conditions and whether he has mentioned the transaction between the petitioner and him in the income tax returns, are not at all relevant for the purpose of trial under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act pending against the petitioner.;