Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Geeta Enterprises vs Babu Lal Meena S/O Shri Kanaram Meena on 15 May, 2019
Author: Pankaj Bhandari
Bench: Pankaj Bhandari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1043/2019
1. Geeta Enterprises, Through Proprietor Purushottam S/o
Shri Lallu Lal Jhalani B/c Mahajan, R/o House No.
193/214, Pratap Nagar, Sector No.19, Sanganer, Jaipur.
2. Purushottam S/o Shri Lallu Lal Jhalani B/c Mahajan, R/o
House No. 193/214, Pratap Nagar, Sector No.19,
Sanganer, Jaipur.
----Petitioners
Versus
Babu Lal Meena S/o Shri Kanaram Meena, R/o Village Samred
Khurd, Post Samred Kalan, Tehsil Jamwaramgarh, District Jaipur.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anoop Agarwal
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI
Judgment / Order
15/05/2019
1. Petitioners have preferred this Criminal Miscellaneous
Petition aggrieved by order dated 19.11.2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No.15, Jaipur Metrocity, Jaipur whereby the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner was rejected and order dated 29.06.2018 passed by Special Court (N.I. Act Cases) No.15, Jaipur vide which application filed by the petitioner under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act was rejected.
2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioners that petitioners produced a pen drive which was containing the recordings but the Court below rejected the application on the ground that pen drive is not supported by a certificate under Section 65-B of the (Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 01:28:13 AM) (2 of 2) [CRLMP-1043/2019] Evidence Act and the application does not contain detail of the mobile number from which the transcript was recorded.
3. I have considered the contentions.
4. The present is a cheque dishonour case which is pending since 2013 where the cheque amount is of Rs.12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakh Only) and at the fag end of trial. After seeking opportunities for producing defence evidence, petitioner has moved this application. Application is not supported by a certificate under Section 65-B of Evidence Act and petitioner has already availed the remedy of Revision which stands rejected by the Revisional Court and second revision is barred under Sub- Section 3 of Section 397 Cr.P.C. Second revision under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can only be claimed under exceptional circumstances and present is not a case of exceptional nature so as to invoke inherent powers, I am not inclined to allow the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition. The same is accordingly dismissed.
5. This Court rather feels that such types of litigation have to be curbed where the parties for the purpose of dealing with such matters, move frivolous applications before the Court, hence, this Court imposes a cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) on the petitioner which is to be deposited with the Court below. On non deposition of the amount, Court below would be free to proceed in accordance with law.
(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J AMIT KUMAR /77 (Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 01:28:13 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)