MADHU BANSAL Vs. DINESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed a criminal case in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chandigarh against the present respondent for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In the said case the respondent has given an application for summoning of witnesses as his defence witnesses. The said application was allowed by the learned Judicial Magistrate. This application is filed for quashing the said order.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued the following points :(i) Witness No. 1, mentioned in the impugned application annexure P/6, was already examined by the complainant and that he was also recalled for cross-examination;(ii) The application, annexure P/6 is given only to delay the proceedings;(iii) No reason is stated for making a prayer for summoning the witnesses;(iv) Witness mentioned at serial No. 2 has no concern.Learned Judicial Magistrate has passed the impugned order, annexure P/8, considering Section 254(1) Cr. P.C. (for short 'the Code'). The provision of Section 254 of the Code does not debar an accused from examining a witness who has already been examined by the complainant/prosecution as his witness. On the contrary, if the complainant's or prosecution witness is again examined by the accused as a defence witness, the prosecution/complainant gets a right to cross-examine the witness. Therefore, if the accused examines such a witness, it will be at his own peril and the complainant cannot be prejudiced by the said act of the accused.