SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J. - (1.) The petitioner is an accused in a complaint filed by respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. At the stage of entering in defence, an application was moved by the accused- petitioner for summoning of witnesses including the Chartered Accountant under Section 233 Cr.P.C. The same has been rejected by the Trial Court. Aggrieved whereof, the present petition has been filed.
(2.) Learned Counsel for petitioner submits that a Chartered Accountant was required to be called as statement has come in evidence of the complainant that as per the CA report, a complaint has been filed. The Trial Court however rejected his application stating that no specific reasons have been mentioned for summoning the witness.
(3.) Learned Counsel has taken to this Court to Sections 233 Cr.P.C. and 254 Cr.P.C. and has relied on the judgment of this Court in Kulvinder Singh Vs. Rajan Taneja, reported in 2017 (2) WLC (Raj.) (UC) 219 and in Neelam Sharma Vs. M/s. Sri Gangadas Irrigation System, reported in 2003 WLC (Raj.) (UC) 750 as well as judgment of the Bombay High Court in Chandrakant Ghuse Vs. Vasantrao Zade & Ors., reported in 2008 Cri.L.J. 2122 to submit that the accused must be given an opportunity to put up his defence and for the said purpose, the witnesses can be summoned by the Court.;