AJIT PATNAIK Vs. SAMARENDRA SAMANTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the Order Dated 20th July, 2006 passed in I.C.C. No. 3388 of 2005 by the J.M.FC, Bhubaneswar.

(2.) BRIEF fact of the case is that the present Opposite Party as complainant filed I.C.C. No. 3388 of 2005 against the present Petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act read with Sec. 420 of the Indian Period Code. After going through the complaint petition, initial statement of the complainant and other documents available on record, cognizance was taken under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and process was issued against the ac cused-Petitioner, pursuant to which the accused-Petitioner appeared and contested the case. After closure of the evidence from both sides, arguments were heard and completed on 18.07.2006 and the case was posted to 24.07.2006 for Judgment. Later in the day. i.e., on 18.07.2006, the complainant-Opposite Party filed a petition under Section 311 Cr. PC. to examine some other witnesses. The accused-Opposite Party also filed a petition under Section 311 Cr. PC. to call for the case record of I.C.C. No. 124 of 2006. After hearing the Counsel for both the parties, the Trial Court by the impugned order allowed both the petitions. The accused-Petitioner has filed this revision being aggrieved by that part of the order whereby the Learned Magistrate allowed the complainant-Opposite Party to examine his witnesses.

(3.) PERUSED the revision petition, affidavit filed on behalf of the Opposite Party and the up-to-date order sheet of the Court of J.M.FC, Bhubaneswar maintained in the aforesaid case. It appears from the order sheet annexed to the affidavit filed on behalf of the Opposite Party that after the impugned order was passed on 20.07.2006, one Subrat Kumar Samant has been examined on behalf of the complainant on 28.07.2006 and he has been cross-examined and discharged on