Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.RA/373/2008 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
REVISION APPLICATION No. 373 of 2008
=========================================================
VISHAL
ASHOKBHAI CHAUHAN - Applicant(s)
Versus
RAJUBHAI
JAGDISHBHAI RATHOD & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
HASMUKH N MAKWANA for
Applicant(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR KC SHAH APP
for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE BANKIM.N.MEHTA
Date
: 15/07/2008
ORAL
ORDER
:
1. The
petitioner has filed this criminal revision application under
Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 and challenged order dated 11-4-2008 passed by the learned
J.M.F.C., Kheda at Nadiad below application Exh. 31 in Criminal Case
No. 4164 of 2007, whereby the application of petitioner for
production of passport of the complainant on record is rejected.
2. The
petitioner is facing trial for the offence punishable u/s 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. During the course of recording of
evidence, the petitioner gave application Exh. 31 and sought
production of document. After hearing, learned Magistrate rejected
application Exh. 31. Being aggrieved by the said decision, the
present criminal revision application is filed.
3. I
have heard learned advocate Mr. H.N. Makwana for the petitioner.
4. It
appears from the impugned order that the petitioner by filing
application Exh. 31 sought for production of document without
indicating as to for what purpose the document is required to be
produced. Copy of application Exh. 31 produced with the compilation
also does not indicate as to for what purpose the document is sought
by the petitioner. Therefore, the learned Magistrate was justified in
rejection application Exh. 31.
5. In
view of the decision of Amar Nath and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana
and Ors., reported in AIR 1977 SUPREME COURT 2185, the
order under challenge being an interlocutory order and hence this
criminal revision application is not maintainable at law and requires
to be dismissed.
5. In
view of above, this criminal revision application fails and stands
dismissed.
(Bankim
N. Mehta,J.)
/JVSatwara/
Top