The court emphasized the accused's right to examine witnesses in defense without needing to specify their relevance, enabling fair trial rights.

JUDGMENT :

Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and with consent of the parties, the petition is heard finally at the stage of admission.

2. By the present petition, the petitioner takes exception to the judgment and order dated 04.01.2020 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, in Criminal Revision No. 159 of 2019, thereby dismissed the revision of the petitioner arising out of order dated 31.07.2019 passed by the learned JMFC, below Exh. 58 in SCC No. 1440 of 2016.

3. In short, it is the case of the petitioner/accused that Respondent No.1 Complainant firm has filed SCC No. 1440 of 2016 for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act alleging dishonour of Cheque bearing No.200014, dated 24.02.2016 for an amount of Rs.11,39,661/- drawn on Bank of Maharashtra, Ravivar Peth, Pune. After service of summons, the petitioner/accused appeared in the matter. In order to prove the accusation, Respondent No.1/complainant firm filed Exh. 19 evidence affidavit of one Shri Sandip Laxman Mapari, the Power of Attorney Holder of the complainant and proved certain documents i.e. Exh.24- Cheque in question, Exh.25- Bank memo, Exh. 26- Statutory notice, Exh.27- acknowledgment and Exh. 28- Copy of power of attorney. The cross examination was conducted on behalf of the petitioner/accused.

4. On perusal of the cross examination of the complainant’s witness Sandip Laxman Mapari, it depicts that the petitioner accused raised following four defence:

(1) He was appointed as Distributor and agreement to that effect was executed between him and the complainant firm.

(2) He was appointed as Sub-Agent by one Mr. Ashok Ugale.

(3) Cheque in question was obtained towards security by the Chairman of the complainant firm under the pretext of providing loan.

(4) Account statement maintained during 2012 to 2014 in respect of transaction between complainant firm and Mr. Ashok Ugale.

(5) He is not served with statutory notice under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and a false complaint has been filed against him.

5. After cross examination of PW1 is over, on 04.04.2019, the learned trial court passed an order below Exh.1 and closed the evidence of complainant. On 27.05.2019, the learned trial court recorded statement of the accused under section 313 of the CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE , wherein the petitioner shown is willingness to examine following witnesses.

(1) Sandip Mapari, (2) Managar, Bank of Maharashtra, Ravivar Peth, Pune, (3) Ashok Ugale, (4) Rakesh Shah, Salesman, (5) Machhindra Lanke- Chairman, (6) Kailas Dukre, (7)Vishwanath K. Kature, Distributor (8) K. P. Agarwal Distributor, (9) Vijay Thosar- Distributor

6. On 27.05.2019, the petitioner/accused filed Exh. 58, an application and given list of 13 defence witnesses. On 31.07.2019, the learned trial court passed an order below Exh. 58 and permitted the petitioner to examine (i) Manager of the Bank of Maharashtra, Ravivar Peth Pune and (ii) Shri Ashokrao Ugale- Distributor to prove the transaction between the complainant-firm and Mr. Ashok Ugale. However, the learned trial court declined to issue summons to the other defence witnesses.

7. Being aggrieved by said order, the petitioner/accused approached before the learned Revisional Court by filing Criminal Revision Application No. 159 of 2019. On 04.01.2020, the learned Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar passed the impugned order and dismissed revision of the petitioner, holding that, the petitioner accused has not disclosed in Exh. 58 how the other witnesses are relevant for the defence.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner canvassed that Section 243 of the CRIMINAL PROCEDURE