Vijay Bishnoi, J. - (1.) This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 1.12.2015 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge No.2., Chittorgarh (hereinafter referred to as the revisional court) in Criminal Revision Petition No.31/2015, whereby, the revision petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. The said revision petition was filed by the petitioner against the order dated 12.5.2015 passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2, Chittorgarh (hereinafter referred to as the trial court) in Criminal Case No.109/2010, whereby, the trial court has accepted the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the respondent and ordered to recall the power of attorney holder of the respondent Bank for reexamination before it.
(2.) Proceedings under Section 138 of the N.I. Act are pending against the petitioner before the trial court. The said proceedings were initiated at the instance of the respondent Bank through its power of attorney holder Mr. Aditya Agrawal. The power of attorney executed by the Bank in favour Mr. Aditya Agrawal was not produced in the court at the time of filing of complaint and recording of the statement of Mr. Aditya Agrawal along with affidavit filed in support of the complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
(3.) In the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., it was contended on behalf of the respondent Bank that due to inadvertance, the said power of attorney has not been placed on record, therefore, the power of attorney holder of Mr. Aditya Agrawal be summoned while exercising powers under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to produce the said power of attorney before the trial court. The prayer of the respondent Bank was opposed by the petitioner, however, the trial court has allowed the said application while observing that since begining, the respondent bank has claimed that Mr. Aditya Agrawal has been authorised to file complaint against the petitioner and for that purpose, the power of attorney was executed in favour of Mr. Aditya Agrawal. The trial court has specifically observed that during the course of trial, at no point of time, the petitioner has ever objected that Mr. Aditya Agrawal is not authorised to initiate proceedings against him or no power of attorney has ever been executed in his favour.;