Mudgal. J. 1. The petitioner has filed this petition under section 482 of the CrPC against the order dated 15.3.2010 passed by the Court of Ist ASJ, Vidisha (Shri BK Dube) in Cr.Revision No. 25 of 2010 affirming the order dated 6.1.2010 passed by the Court of JMFC (Shri Jaffar Iqbal) in Cr.Case No. 2782 of 2006 rejecting the application filed by the accused for calling Bholaram and Sanjay Tiwari as defence witnesses and hand writing expert Pankaj Agrawal for getting the writing on the cheques examined in his defence.

2. In brief, the facts of the case are that, a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has been filed by the respondent/complainant against the petitioner/accused regarding three cheques given by him to the complainant which were returned by ICICI Bank for payment as there was no sufficient fund in the account of the petitioner/accused. The demand note for the payment of the cheques amount was given by the complainant to the accused but the accused failed to pay the amount as demanded by the complainant. Therefore the said complaint has been filed against the accused.

3. Denying the allegation of the complaint, the accused has claimed that the disputed cheques were not given by him to the complainant. The accused further states that no grain was purchased by him from the complainant as alleged in paras 3, 4 and 5 of the complaint. The accused has taken a defence that the aforesaid cheques were given by him to Bhola Ram and Sanjay Tiwari in his business transaction. The cheques were misused by the complainant in connivance with Bhola and Sanjay Tiwari. The statement of accused under section 315 of CrPC was recorded on 6.1.2010. On the same day, an application for calling aforesaid witnesses was filed by the accused. The application was rejected vide order dated 6.1.2010 on the ground that the delay has been caused by the accused in trial. The propriety of the aforesaid order was challenged in Criminal Revision No. 25 of 2010 which was rejected by the Court of Ist ASJ, Vidisha vide order dated 15.3.2010 affirming the order of lower Court.

4. The petitioner’s counsel submits that no delay was caused on the part of accused in the trial because, the statement of accused under section 315 of CrPC was recorded on 6.1.2010 and on the same date, the application was filed by the accused without any delay for calling the witnesses in his defence. Learned counsel has further submitted that accused in his defence has elaborately stated that the disputed cheques were not given to the complainant instead they were given to Bhola Ram and Sanjay Tiwari, Besides the accused has also deposed in his statement that the writing on the cheques was not in his handwriting, except the signatures and the cheques amount. The learned counsel has further contended that the orders of lower Court as well as the revision Court are contrary to law as the accused should not have been deprived to adduce evidence in his defence to rebut the complainant’s evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court reported as 2009 (III) MPWN 117=2009 (III) MPJR 65 (Mukesh Goyal v. Yasin Patel).

5. Per Contra, opposing the submissions made on behalf of the accused, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the examination of accused under section 313 of CrPC was carried out on 24.9.2009 and the case was fixed for accused’s defence evidence on 10.10.2009 but on the fixed date, no application was filed on behalf of the accused for calling the witness in his defence. He further submitted that after recording of his statement under section 315 of CrPC, the application for calling alleged defence witness was filed malafidely on 6.1.2010 for causing delay in trial. He has further submitted that considering the facts, the application was rejected by the trial Court on sufficient ground and the order of learned trial Court is well reasoned which was affirmed by the rev