Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Suresh Kataria vs State Of Rajasthan on 14 March, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
(1 of 3) [CRLR-30/2022]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 30/2022
1. Suresh Kataria S/o Shri Ramchandra, Aged About 30
Years, B/c Meghwal, R/o Opp. Dada Bhagwan Farm,
Tinwari, P.s. Mathania, District Jodhpur. Presently
Manager, Mahatma Gandhi X-Rays And Lab, Mahatma
Sonography Center, Olympic Road, Jodhpur.
2. Dr. Vishal Saraswat S/o Shri Jamna Prasad Sharma, Aged
About 43 Years, R/o 19/57-B, Opp. Laxmi Steel Rolling
Mills, New Gopalpuri, Pala Road, Aligharh (U.p.)
----Petitioners
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nishan Bora
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gaurav Singh, PP
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
14/03/2022
In wake of instant surge in COVID-19 cases and spread of its
highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being
maintained, while hearing the matters in Court, for the safety of
all concerned.
The revision petition has been preferred claiming the
following reliefs:-
"(i) The revision petition may kindly be allowed and
order dated 03.12.2021 may kindly be quashed and set
aside to the extent of remanding the matter to the trial
court for exhibiting the documents afresh and
rehearing;
(ii) Any other relief, which your Lordship may deem just
and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case,
may also kindly be issued in favour of the petitioner."
(Downloaded on 15/03/2022 at 08:41:47 PM)
(2 of 3) [CRLR-30/2022]
The core submission made by learned counsel for the
petitioner is that the appellate court while dealing with the
evidence found that the number of exhibits/documents were not
signed by the presiding officer and did not carry the seal of the
court, and thus, the appellate court has remanded the matter
back to mark the exhibits properly and make the necessary
signatures alongwith seals.
The bone of contention is that whether the petitioner should
get the opportunity to make fresh examination/evidence regarding
these documents which are being sent back to be marked as
proper exhibits.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the
judgment of Manish Saraswat Vs. Naresh Sharma & Anr.
passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.380/2010 decided
on 23.03.2010, the relevant portion reads as follows:-
"I have considered submissions made by the parties
and scanned the matter carefully.
From the facts, it is coming out that though the
documents were shown to be exhibited while filing the
affidavit by the complainant, however, not marked as
exhibit in the manner provided under the provisions of
law. In view of the aforesaid, the petitioner could not be
examined in reference to those documents, which were
not exhibited in the manner indicated above. In view of
the above, the petitioner's application should have been
allowed by the Courts below.
At this stage, learned counsel for the non-petitioner has
agreed that the orders may be set aside and the
petitioner may be given chance to make his statement
afresh but a further liberty has been sought to make an
application to get the documents exhibited.
In view of the aforesaid, I am inclined to quash and set
aside the impugned orders herein and accordingly, the
same are quashed and set aside. The petitioner's
statement is to be recorded afresh with liberty to the
non-petitioner to cross examine him. The non-
petitioner-complainant would also be at liberty to make
(Downloaded on 15/03/2022 at 08:41:47 PM)
(3 of 3) [CRLR-30/2022]
an application to get documents exhibited in the
manner provided under provisions of law.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, the
criminal miscellaneous petition is disposed of."
Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the petition.
This Court, after hearing the submission and perusing the
record of the case, finds that the precedent law cited above by the
learned counsel for the petitioner does not apply in the present
case because in that case, the Court itself has recorded that the
petitioner could not be examined in reference to those documents,
which were not exhibited in the manner indicated above whereas
in the present case it is an admitted fact that a detailed
examination has taken place pertaining to those documents and a
mere repeat of examination on a repeat of opportunity not being
given to re-examine will not cause any prejudice to the present
petitioner as admittedly the detailed examination has taken place
in reference to the documents in question. Learned trial Court has
rightly held that since a detailed examination pertaining to the
documents have been permitted by the learned trial Court,
therefore, no fresh examinations is called for. Hence, the order of
the learned appellate Court does not call for any interference. The
petitioner shall be given three months henceforth to appear before
the learned trial court.
In view of the above, the present petition is dismissed. All
pending applications stand dismissed accordingly.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J.
13-Sudheer/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
