J.B.PARDIWALA, J.

1. By this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the applicant original accused calls in question the legality and validity of the order dated 19th August 2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad in the Criminal Revision Application No.217 of 2015, by which the Revisional Court rejected the revision application filed by the applicant herein, thereby affirming the order passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Negotiable Instruments), Court No.36, Ahmnedabad dated 17th April 2015 below Exhibit: 28 in the Criminal Case No.1119 of 2013.

2. The facts giving rise to this application may be summarised as under:

2.1. The respondent No.1 has filed a complaint against the applicant herein in the Court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Negotiable Instruments), Court No.36, Ahmedabad for the offence of dishonour of cheque punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complaint filed by the respondent No.1 has culminated in the Criminal Case No.1119 of 2013.

2.2. It appears that the complainant has closed his evidence. Thereafter, the further statement of the applicant – accused was also recorded by the Trial Court. At that stage, the applicant herein preferred an application Exhibit: 28 before the Trial Court stating that he intends to examine himself and five defence witnesses. The Trial Court partly allowed the application Exhibit: 28. The Trial Court permitted the applicant to enter the box and lead his own evidence and examine himself. The Trial Court also permitted two defense witnesses to be examined i.e. the Bank official of the complainant's bank and the bank official of the bank in which the accused has his account. However, the request of the applicant to examine one Sabirbhai Habibbhai Mansuri and the bank official of the Bank of India, Sarkhej Branch (bank of the complainant), was declined.

2.3. The applicant, being dissatisfied with the order passed by the Trial Court below Exhibit: 28, challenged the same before the City Sessions Court at Ahmedabad by filing the Criminal Revision Application No.217 of 2015. The said revision application came to be rejected by the Revisional Court vide order dated 19th August 2015.

3. Being dissatisfied with the order passed by the Revisional Court, the applicant is here before this Court with this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

4. Mr. Bharda, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that both the Courts below committed a serious error in passing the impugned orders. He submitted that the right of the accused to adduce evidence of his choice is a part of fair trial. The learned counsel submitted that the right of the Court to deny an opportunity for defence evidence is limited to the cases here it is satisfied, for reasons to be recorded in writing, that the application is made for the purpose of vexation or delay or for defeating the ends of justice. According to the learned counsel, when the Trial Court thought fit to permit the bank officials of the concerned bank with which the applicant and the complainant maintain their accounts as the defence witnesses, then in such circumstances, there was no good reason for the Trial Court to decline the examination of two other persons as the defence witnesses i.e. Sabirbhai Habibbhai Mansuri and the bank official of the bank with which one Soheb Sehbaz Shaikh maintains his account.

5. The argument of the learned counsel is that as the Trial Court thought fit to allow application Exhibit: 28 in part, the same is suggestive of the fact that the Trial Court is not of the view that the application has been filed only with a vie to protract the trial. The learned counsel would submit that the Trial Court has gone into the issue of relevancy of the evidence of the two defence witnesses, who have not been permitted to be examined.

6. In such circumstances referred to above, the lear