1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.526 OF 2008 Mr.Kabir N. Vishram & Ors. .. Applicants Versus Mr.Pramod Ambadas Nandurkar & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.R.S.Alange for the applicants. Mr.Payal Sarda for respondent no.1. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 16 th June 2009. P.C.: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the applicants and learned counsel appearing for the 1 st respondent. My attention is invited to order dated 29 th February 2008. In terms of the said order a sum of Rs.10,000/- has been deposited by the applicants in this Court. 2. The applicants have been arraigned as an accused in a complaint filed by the 1 st respondent under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. After the 1 st respondent adduced evidence, statement of the applicants under 2 section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded in which the applicants did not came out with a case that they were desirous of adducing defence evidence. An application was thereafter made at Exhibit 74 by the applicants seeking permission to lead defence evidence. The said application has been rejected by the order impugned on the ground that the applicants are interested in delaying the complaint. The objection of the learned counsel appearing for the 1 st respondent is that a revision application was maintainable under section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the impugned order and therefore this application under section 482 of the said Code cannot be entertained. His second submission is that at this belated stage, applicants cannot be permitted to examine defence witnesses. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant states that the applicants desire to examine only the 1 st applicant as a defence witness and they do not desire to examine any other witness. 3. I have carefully considered the submissions. 3 Assuming that a revision application against the impugned order is maintainable before the Sessions Court, the jurisdiction of this Court under section 482 of the said Code cannot be affected and in a given case this Court can exercise the power. This petition has remained pending from February 2008 in this Court. As a result, the trial of the complaint filed by the 1 st respondent has been delayed. Now, the applicants have stated that they want to examine only the 1 st applicant as a defence witness. The said evidence cannot be shut out as the applicants are entitled to have fair opportunity to contest the charge against them. A sum of Rs. 10,000/- has been already deposited in this Court by way of costs payable to the 1 st respondent and therefore prejudice which may be caused to the 1 st respondent due to delay in disposal of the complaint has been taken care of. 4. Hence, I pass the following order: : O R D E R : i. The impugned order is quashed and 4 set aside. The 1 st respondent is permitted to examine himself as a defence witness. ii. The applicants are not entitled to seek adjournment on any unreasonable ground. The 1 st respondent is permitted to withdraw the sum of Rs.10,000/- deposited in this Court by way of costs of this application. iii. Criminal Application is allowed in above terms. The learned Judge will endeavour to dispose of the complaint by end of October 2009. (A.S.OKA,J)