SEEMA JAIN Vs. DHANISHTH JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - This criminal misc. petition under Sec. 482 Crimial P.C. has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 28.1.2016 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer (hereinafter referred to as 'the revisional court') in Revision Petition No.8/2016 whereby the said revision petition has been dismissed as not maintainable. In the said revision petition, the petitioner had challenged the order dated 8.12.2015 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Jaisalmer (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Criminal Original Case No.619/2011 whereby the application filed by the petitioner to summon certain documents as well as bank officer as witness was rejected.

(2.) The trial court had rejected the said application while observing that the petitioner has failed to give cogent reason for summoning the documents or for summoning the bank officer as witness. The trial court while observing that the petitioner wants to delay the proceedings and had rejected the application preferred on behalf of the petitioner.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the trial court has grossly erred in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for summoning certain documents as well as the bank officer as witness without giving any reason. It is argued that fair trial is main object of the criminal procedure and it is the duty of the court to ensure that such fairness may not be hampered or threatened in any manner and for that purpose, if the accused person make a request before the trial court for summoning certain documents or for summoning a person as witness, then ordinarily, it should be allowed. It is also argued that for the purpose of proving innocence of the petitioner, certain documents of bank are required to be summoned and the bank officer is also required to be summoned for the purpose of ascertaining whether signatures contained on the said cheque are of the petitioner or not.