1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO.1456 OF 2008 (SHARAD MADHUSUDAN MOHOD Vs RAMKRISHNA MAHADSA RAJAGURE) _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders ______________________________________________________________________________________________ Shri S.Zia Qazi, Advocate for Applicant Shri K.S.Dhote, A.P.P. for Respondent No.2. CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 29, 2008. 1. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the applicant seeks to have revisonal order passed by the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati on 27th March, 2008 quashed and set aside. The applicant is accused in criminal case pending before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Amravati for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. After his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded on 2nd November, 2007 he had the matter adjourned from time to time, in all 11 times according to the learned Magistrate, to tender defence evidence and then sought summons being issued to a witness on 12th 2 February, 2008. The learned Magistrate rejected the application as an attempt on the part of the applicant to protract the trial. The applicant's revision also came to be rejected. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.P.P. for respondent No.2. 3. The original complainant had filed notes of argument stating that he was not in a position to engage a counsel. The learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Criminal Application No.1455/2008 between applicant's wife and the complainant in respect of the similar proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned counsel stated that after considering the facts, this Court held that applicant's application for issuance of summons to the witness should be allowed subject to payment of7 costs of Rs.One Thousand. He relied on the observations of this Court in paragraph 5 of the said judgment. It seems that the applicant was able to make out a case as if he had not sought any adjournment or had not 3 tried to protract the trial by pointing out that applicant's cross- examination was over on 23rd January, 2008 after the applicant tendered his affidavit in evidence on 18.12.2007, in that case, after the statement of accused was recorded on 2nd November, 2007. 4. If that be so, it is clear that the applicant was taking time to tender his evidence and complete it and observations about protraction of the trial by the Magistrate were not totally unfounded. 5. Be that as it may, since this Court had. in similar matter between applicant's wife and the complainant, taken a view that the application for summoning the witness should have been allowed, this application is allowed subject to costs of Rs.Five Thousand to be paid to Non-applicant within a period of two weeks. JUDGE RR.