( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 951 OF 2009 Virendra s/o. Khanderao Gaikwad .. Petitioner Versus Kunjbihari s/o. Badrinarayan Sharma .. Respondent Shri Swapnil S. Patil, Advocate for the petitioner. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 09.11.2009 P.C. :- 1. Heard Shri S.S. Patil, Advocate for the petitioner. By this petition the petitioner, who was original accused in S.T.C.No. 4082 of 2002 before 4th Jt. J.M.F.C.,Dhule, is aggrieved by the order passed below applications Exhs. 59 and 61. 2. Application Exh.59 is filed for taking action under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. against the complainant. It is stated that the complainant has deposed falsely and liable to be punished under Sections 193, 191, 196, 418 and 420 of the ( 2 ) I.P.C. Application Exh.61 is for calling certain witnesses. 3. So far as application Exh.59 for taking action under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. is concerned, the application is pre-mature. The application was given when trial was yet pending. It appears that the evidence of the complainant was over and statement of accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded. But the accused had given application for summoning certain witnesses. Thus, the stage was of production of defence evidence and the arguments were yet to be advanced. If we consider Section 340 of the Cr.P.C., it is abundantly clear that before the Court takes action under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C., it has to record finding to the effect that the offence under clause (b) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 195 of Cr.P.C. appears to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court. So, it is this finding which could be given by Criminal Court in summary matter only at the stage of judgment, considering that here accused wanted prosecution of complainant for filing false case and for committing various offences and on the face of it, the stage could be only after arguments. Then the petitioner could have requested the ( 3 ) Court to consider feasibility of action under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. and Court would consider whether it is proper case to initiate proceedings under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. and record finding to that extent in the judgment itself. Prior to the hearing of the arguments and delivery of judgment such action under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. is not contemplated in the circumstances of the case. Therefore, no interference is required by this Court in rejection of application Exh.59. 4. So far as application Exh.61 is concerned, Exh.60 is as follow:- “In the matter accused is submitting the list of witness as below; 1] To, NASSCOM, New Delhi (with the document of registered member list from 2000 to 2002. 2] Govt. of India through its officer, Ministry of Information Technology, New Delhi with the document of registered member list from 2000 to 2002. 3] Inderpal Singh Surendra Pal Singh Sethi Dhulia, (1st owner with the document of work provider from U.S.A. and Govt. lincence of NASSCOM and it licence. 4] Pramila Kunjbihari Sharma, Dhulia (Attesting witness of the agreement deed). 5] The Officer, State of Maharashtra, Bombay Shop ( 4 ) Act (document of reg. List from 2001 to 2002). 5] D.P. Sonar (Notary to bring record from 2001 to 2002). 6] List of students on Pg. 5 of agreement i.e. Prashant Kulkarni and others.” [sic] 5. By application Exh.61 the applicant wanted to call eight witnesses as his defence witnesses. Prayer of application Exh.61 is as below:- “A] Application may kindly be granted and witness may kindly be permitted and directed to come with the document so permission may kindly be granted and oblige.” 6. The learned judge rightly observed that witness No. 1 belongs to NASSCOM, New Delhi and his designation was not given. Witness No.2 is officer of Government of India, Ministry of Information Technology and his name is also not given. No reason was given for calling him as witness. Same was case with witness Nos. 3 to 6. At the time of statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. the accused stated that he was not going to examine any witness. The learned Magistrate also observed that no relevancy of the evidence of the witnesses was stated and therefore he did not find any ( 5 ) substance in the application and it was rejected. 7. The case against accused is that of cheque bouncing - an committed offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and question arises how evidence of the witnesses named in the application Exh.60 would be relevant for decision of the case. On the face of it, the Magistrate did not commit any error. 8. At this stage Adv. Shri Patil seeks liberty to the petitioner/accused to file application in detail explaining how the evidence of said witnesses would be relevant and he states that he may be permitted to make fresh application and satisfy the Magistrate. 9. In the facts of the case, liberty to file application as prayed is granted to the petitioner. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed with the aforesaid liberty. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2009/NOV09/crwp951.09