1` IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application No. 576/2009 Shikshak Sahakari Bank Ltd., Nagpur vs. Mr. Santosh Marotrao Rajurkar and another ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders. CORAM : R.Y.Ganoo,J DATE : 25.08.2009 Heard Mr. N.G. Jetha, learned advocate for petitioner, Mr. Anil Kumar, learned advocate for respondent no.1 and Mrs. Khade, learned A.P.P. for respondent no.2. 2. The petitioner is a complainant in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ballarpur in Summary Criminal Case No. 117/2008 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments act. The respondent no.1 is an accused in the said case. In the statement under section 313 of Cr.P.C., respondent no.1 stated that he does not wish to examine any witness. Subsequently, an application (Exh. 48) is filed praying for the examination of the particular witness. That application came to be granted by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ballarpur against which this petition is filed. 2` 3. I have heard the learned advocate Mr. Jetha and Mr. Anil Kumar, learned advocate for respondent no.1 and Mrs. Khade, learned A.P.P. for State. 4. According to the learned advocate for the petitioner, if the respondent no.1 declined to examine a witness, it is not open for the respondent no.1 to show desire to examine a witness and that is how application for examination of witnesses should have been rejected. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned advocate Mr. Jetha. I have read the order below Exh.48. This submission advanced by the learned Advocate Mr. Jetha can not be accepted. The respondent no.1 must get an opportunity to unfold his defence by examination of the such witness as he wants. It is in this background the application has been granted. 5. The argument was advanced by the learned Advocate Mr. Jetha that respondent no.1 has not disclosed as to why he wants to examine the Chief Executive Officer of the Bank. In my view, the respondent no.1 is not required to explain and give details as to why he wants to examine the Chief Executive Officer of the Bank. It is for respondent no.1 to decide and examine the witnesses. To that extent the argument is rejected. In substance, the order dated 24.11.2008 granting application need not be 3` interfered with. The petition is required to be dismissed at the stage of admission. Petition is dismissed. JUDGE patle