UJJAWAL BUILDCON PVT. LTD. Vs. RAJ KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner filed two complaints against the respondent which are going on in the Court of the Special Judicial Magistrate (N.I. Act Cases) No. 2, Udaipur being Cases No. 881/2009 and 884/2009. The respondent accused filed two separate applications under Section 91 Cr.P.C. in both these cases for being permitted to exhibit a receipt purporting to show the return of the money to the petitioner. The said application was rejected by the learned Magistrate on 19.10.2010 on which the respondent preferred two revisions which have been accepted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Udaipur by his order dated 4.4.2011. Thus, the present revision petitions have been filed by the petitioner-complainant challenging the order dated 4.4.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Udaipur whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has reversed the order dated 19.10.2010 passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate (N.I. Act cases) and has directed that disputed receipt to be taken on record and exhibited in Cases No. 881/2009 and 884/2009 respectively at the request of the respondent-accused.

(2.) Assailing the order impugned, counsel for the petitioner submits that like applications seeking the same relief on behalf of the accused had been filed before the trial Court earlier also and stood rejected. The rejection of the applications was upheld by the Revisional Court and despite that the accused again filed the similar application before the trial Court who rejected the same after observing that the earlier applications of similar nature stood rejected and upheld by the revisional Court. Learned counsel submits that the revisional Court while accepting the revision filed by the accused did not even give any consideration to the fact that the earlier applications filed in this regard stood rejected and the orders of rejection had attained finality. Learned counsel submits that order impugned is absolutely illegal and an abuse of the process of law.

(3.) Mr. M.K. Garg, learned counsel for the respondent submits that he is not in a position to dispute the fact that earlier applications filed by the accused with the same prayer stood rejected by the learned trial Court and had also attained finality.