on record, the same became primary evidence of the document. In any case, I need not discuss this aspect of the case at all, because the question which was stopped by the learned Magistrate, was indeed irrelevant, frivolous and unnecessary. As said above, the applicant did not disclose his defence in the cross-examination. Unless the applicant brings on record relevance of this question, this question was completely unnecessary. The office copy of the notice was taken on record in presence of the applicant. He raised no objection for exhibiting the office copy of the notice. So, when the notice came on record, he had an ample opportunity to peruse the notice and the contents of the same. Assuming for the sake of argument that perusal of this document was necessary because the applicant did not receive the notice as alleged by the respondent/complainant, still so far it does not appear to be defence of the applicant. I think, this question which was stopped from being asked, can be put again during cross-examination but only after disclosing the defence. The applicant should satisfy the learned Magistrate as to why the question was necessary and relevant. On the face of it, today it does not appear relevant and necessary. The application is dismissed. The applicant/accused is given liberty to put the same question again only after disclosing the defence and convincing the learned Magistrate relevancy of the same.
