HAZI MOHD Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY both these revision petitions under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code' hereinafter), the accused-petitioner has challenged the order dated 26. 7. 2005 passed by Additional District Judge, No. 3, Jodhpur (for short 'the revisional Court' hereinafter) in Criminal Revision Nos. 19 of 2005 and 20 of 2005 respectively whereby the revisional Court set aside the orders dated 3. 3. 2005 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, (Economic offences), Jodhpur (for short 'the Trial Court' hereinafter ). Both these revisions arise between the same parties and involve common question of facts and law, therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, they are heard together and decided by this order.

(2.) TWO separate complaints under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act' hereinafter) were filed by non-petitioner no. 2 M/s. Sabu Mineral Pvt. Ltd. against the petitioner. The Trial Court took the cognizance of the offence and issued process. Accused-petitioner appeared in compliance of the process issued by the Trial Court. The Trial court read over the substance of the charge to the petitioner. The petitioner denied the charge and sought trial. At the stage of recording statement of complainant and its witnesses, a question was put to a witness Ashok Mehta that he has not filed any authorization to file the complaint against the petitioner. At that stage, an application in both the cases under Sec. 311 of the Code was filed by complainant-non-petitioner No. 2 seeking to produce the authorization letter and recall the witness Ashok Mehta, those applications came to be dismissed by the Trial Court vide order dated 3. 3. 2005. Against the order of Trial Court, the non-petitioner No. 2 filed revision petitions being Revision No. 19 and 20 of 2005 respectively. By the order impugned, both the revision petitions and the applications filed by the non-petitioner No. 2 under Sec. 311 were allowed and the non- petitioner No. 2 was permitted to file the authorization letter as also to recall the witness to prove the authorization. Aggrieved by the order of the revisional Court, the accused-petitioner has filed these two separate revisions.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Carefully gone through the order passed by the Trial Court as also by the revisional Court.