SUNDERLAL PATWA Vs. DIGVIJAY SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Criminal Revision impugns the order dated 19 -12 -2001, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhopal in Criminal Case No. 5599 of 2001, whereby the learned Magistrate has disallowed the permission to ask certain questions in respect of allotment of the House No. 8 -A, Lodhi Estate to non -applicant No.1, and also about the rate and price of the land allotted to 'Nayee Duniya', a local news paper, which, according to him, were out of context and were absolutely unrelated to the facts in issue.

(2.) IT appears from the averments of the criminal revision that the non -applicant No. 1 in prosecution of his complaint under section 500 Indian Penal Code against the applicant and the non -applicant No. 2, was examined in chief on 5 -12 -2000 and was also cross -examined on the same day. Moreover, an application under section 311, Criminal Procedure Code was moved on behalf of the applicant, to re -examine him which was rejected by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, but in the criminal revision No. 187/2001, as per order dated 21 -8 -2001 the learned Sessions Judge, Bhopal directed the re -examination of the said non -applicant on 19 -12 -2001. However, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate while exercising a proper check on recording of evidence, disallowed two questions which, according to the learned counsel for the applicant, had been asked in terms of the provisions of section 146 of the Evidence Act, and, thus, as a hind -sight, he stopped further cross -examination. Hence this criminal revision.

(3.) THE Hon'ble Apex Court has reproduced the above observations and has further added to that, in the matter of Ganesh Narain Hegde vs. S. Bagarappa, AIR 1995 SCW 2364 Para 18 : (1995) 4 SCC 41. To borrow the exact words from the judgment, it says: