- Case
- TEJRAJ S/O. HIRALAL CHAVAN v. MALGANGA DAIRY PHARM THROUGH ITS REPRESENTATIVE DEEPRAJ KISAN DANGAT AND ANR (Bombay High Court, 07-01-2026)
- Law
- Code of Criminal Procedure, Negotiable Instruments Act.
Facts: Tejraj Chavan, the accused, is facing charges under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for cheque dishonor. He claimed the cheque was given as security for a loan, and he wasn't served a statutory notice. He sought to examine 13 defence witnesses to prove transactions between himself, the complainant firm, and one Mr. Ashok Ugale, arguing he was appointed as a sub-agent and distributor. The trial court allowed only two witnesses, and the Sessions Court upheld this decision.
Procedural Posture: The accused filed a Criminal Writ Petition in the High Court challenging the Sessions Court's order that upheld the trial court's decision to limit the number of defence witnesses he could examine. The High Court is reviewing the lower courts' orders regarding the issuance of summons to defence witnesses.
Issue: Did the trial court and the Sessions Court err in restricting the accused's right to examine defence witnesses under Section 243 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and is the relevance of each witness required to be disclosed in the application for summons?
Holding: Yes, the High Court partly allowed the writ petition, quashing the orders of the Sessions Judge and the relevant part of the trial court's order. The High Court directed the trial court to issue summons to four specific defence witnesses, including the Branch Manager of the Bank of Maharashtra, Ashok Ugale, Machhindra Shantaram Lanke, and Kailas Eknath Dukre.
Reasoning: The High Court reasoned that while the accused must enter their defence and the Magistrate can refuse summons for vexatious or delaying purposes, the accused has the right to prove their defence. Citing T. Nagappa Vs. Y. R. Muralidhar, the court emphasized that "it is the accused who knows how to prove his defence." The court found that examining Shri Machhindra Shantaram Lanke and Shri Kailas Eknath Dukre was relevant to the accused's defence, particularly regarding the cheque being security for a loan and the account statements between the complainant firm and Mr. Ashok Ugale. The court distinguished other proposed witnesses whose relevance was not sufficiently established.
