1 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.3 OF 2009 Krishnakumar Khandelwal Petitioner versus State of Maharashtra and another Respondents S.V.Marwadi i/by S.P.Narkar for petitioner. Yashpal Thakar i/by M/s.Paras Kuhad & Associates for respondent no.2. H.J.Dedhia, APP for State. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 2nd July 2009 PC :- 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner has been arraigned as an accused in a complaint filed by the second respondent alleging commission of offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act of 1881"). An application was made by the petitioner under section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Code" for short) for issuing witness summons to four persons. The said application was opposed by the second respondent-complainant. The said application was rejected by the learned Magistrate and petitioner was directed to pay costs of Rs.2,000/-. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has invited my 2 attention to the averments made in the application under section 311 of the said Code. He submitted that the averments made in the application show that the witnesses who were sought to be summoned are all relevant witnesses and some of them are having knowledge about the alleged transaction. He submitted that the defence of the petitioner could not have been shut out by the preventing examination of the said witnesses. 3. I have considered the submissions. The present application on which the impugned order has been passed has been filed on 7th August 2008. Earlier, the petitioner had filed an application on 30th December 2005 under the provisions of Section 311 of the said Code for issuing witness summonses to nine witnesses. The statement under section 313 was recorded on 26th December 2005 and the said earlier application was filed four days thereafter. The learned Magistrate permitted the petitioner to examine himself and three other witnesses. There were revision applications preferred by the petitioner and the complainant against the said order. By the judgement and order dated 20th July 2006 the revision application preferred by the petitioner was dismissed and revision application preferred by the second respondent-complainant was allowed. The learned Additional Sessions Judge permitted the petitioner to examine himself and and the bank witnesses whose names are mentioned in the application dated 18th August 2005. The said order has not challenged by the petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner has been examined as a witness. 3 4. The present application under section 311 of the said Code, as stated earlier, is filed in the year 2008. In the earlier application the petitioner had sought permission to examine as many as nine witnesses. The said permission was denied by the Sessions Court by order dated 20th July 2006. The said order, as of today, has attained finality. In the circumstances, the learned Magistrate was justified in rejecting the present application made by the petitioner. No case for interference is made out. The petition is rejected. However, it is made clear that all contentions on merits of the pending complaint are expressly kept open. (A.S.OKA, J.)