RAJESH RANA Vs. BABU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court challenging order dated 29.2.2020 (Annexure P-6) passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1 st Class, Karnal, whereby an application filed by the petitioner/accused seeking summoning of two witnesses i.e. an official from the Office of Official Liquidator, Chandigarh and a Clerk from General Hospital, Kaithal in his defence has been partly allowed and has been declined qua summoning of concerned Clerk of General Hospital, Kaithal.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been facing trial in respect of a complaint instituted against him by respondent Babu Ram for offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and that after conclusion of prosecution evidence and recording of statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., when matter was fixed for recording defence evidence, an application was moved by the petitioner seeking summoning of two witnesses in his defence i.e. an official from the Office of Official Liquidator, Chandigarh and a Clerk from General Hospital, Kaithal and that although the learned counsel for the complainant expressed no objection for allowing of the said application, the Trial Court allowed the same only qua summoning of the official from the Office of Official Liquidator and declined the same qua summoning of concerned clerk from the Office of General Hospital, Kaithal.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the present case summoning of the concerned clerk from the Office of General Hospital, Kaithal was necessitated on account of the fact that during the course of cross-examination of CW-1 Zile Singh he stated that Narender Kumar (co- accused) had come to his father to hand over the cheque in question on 31.8.2013, whereas infact the said co-accused was posted in Kaithal on the said day in General Hospital and, as such, could not have visited Karnal to hand over the cheque in question.