1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 413 OF 2007 Sandeep Raghavaji Gala ..Applicant versus M/s. Crompton Greaves Limited & Anr. ..Respondents Mr. S. P. Kadam for Applicant. Mr. A. S. Khandeparkar i/b. Mr. B. D. Bahal & Mr. Anil Joshi for Respondent No. 1. Ms. A. A. Mane – APP for State. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. DATED : 6TH OCTOBER, 2009. P.C. : 1. The applicant has challenged the refusal of the trial court to issue summons to the list of witnesses submitted by him. 2. The applicant is an accused in a complaint lodged by the respondent – complainant. The applicant was a dealer of the company and is being prosecuted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in respect of five cheques which he had deposited with the respondent – company. According to the applicant the cheques were deposited as security and there 2 was no existing liability. Therefore the cheques could not have been submitted for encashment. Accordingly the dishonour of said cheques does not attract the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In order to prove this contention the applicant has sought examination of certain witnesses i.e. the officers of the company with whom the applicant dealt. The applicant had originally submitted a list of 12 witnesses, out of which the court has granted permission to issue summons to three witnesses (i) Mr. Sachin Gupta, (2) Mr. J. G. Shetye and (iii) Bank of Bardoa Tardeo Branch. The court has declined permission in respect of others. 3. Mr. Kadam the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that refusal of permission for examination of witnesses would result in denial of justice and the court could not have validly denied the said permission. 4. Now the applicant seeks summons only for following persons: 1. Mr. Trehan 2. Mr. Prem Srinivasan 3. Mr. P. N. Modak However the learned counsel for the respondent points out that Mr. Trehan did not at any point of time dealt with the applicant and is not a relevant witness at all. The applicant has despite opportunity failed to produce any documents or any proof showing that he had any dealings with Mr. Trehan. 3 In fact Mr. Khandeparkar has stated that Mr. Trehan was never in the Fans Division and could not have had any dealing with the applicant also. In the circumstances, it is not necessary to issue summons to said Mr. Trehan. 5. However there is no reason why summons should not be issued to Mr. Prem Srinivasan and Mr. P. N. Modak who were employed in the Electronic Division with whom the applicant had dealings. Mr. Khandeparkar the learned counsel for the respondent submits that these two persons have retired but the company will provide the address in their possession to the applicant within a period of one week from today. It is therefore directed that the summons shall be issued by the trial court for examination of (1) Mr. Prem Srinivasan and (2) Mr. P. N. Modak on the request of the applicant – accused. The complaint is of the year 2000 and therefore it is directed to be decided expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from the next date of hearing fixed in the trial court. 6. Application is disposed of accordingly. (S. A. BOBDE, J.)