Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:20324 Court No. - 12 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3099 of 2025 Applicant :- Momin Khan And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Lalla Chauhan,Sanket Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Shri Lalla Chauhan, learned counsel for applicants, learned A.G.A.for the State and perused the material available on record. 2. By means of the present application under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Surkasha Sanhita, 2023 (482 Cr.P.C.), the applicant has assailed the order dated 13.02.2025 passed by the learned Additional Court No. 5 in Complaint Case No. 80429 of 2022 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for applicants during the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 where the applicant is an accused in the aforesaid proceedings had moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking to summon one Anil Singh, Sales Manager as a witness. 4. It was stated that PW-1 in his cross-examination had made a reference of Anil Singh as Sales Manager and consequently, stated that in the interest of justice, the said person may be summoned. The trial court has rejected the application stating that the said witness cannot be summoned on the request of the accused but the accused has a discretion to summon the said witness at the stage of defence witness. 5. The only ground raised by the applicant is that the applicant does not have the details of the said person, therefore, he expressed his inability to summon the said person as a defence witness. 6. This Court has considered the impugned order as well as arguments raised by learned counsel for applicant. 7. According to section 311 Cr.P.C. the discretion is vested with the court which may at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceedings summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned earlier, in case, the Court is of the opinion that his evidence appears to be essential to the just decision of the case. 8. In the present case, an application has been moved by the applicant, who is an accused in the aforesaid case to summon Anil Singh, Sales Manager. 9. This Court finds that the Court could not find any good ground for summoning the said person as a witness in the present proceedings but further duly considered that it shall away open for the accused to summon as a defence witness. No material could be indicated with regard to the relevance of the said witness except the fact that a reference was made to his name in the examination-in-chief/cross examination of PW-1. This Court does not find any infirmity with the finding recorded by the trial court that the said person can away be summoned as a defence witness. Therefore, it cannot be said that the interest of the accused has been adversely prejudiced. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not find any infirmity with the impugned order dated 13.02.2025 passed by the learned Additional Court No. 5 in Complaint Case No. 126834 of 2022 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 11. This application being devoid of merit, is accordingly, dismissed. . (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 10.4.2025 Virendra Digitally signed by :- VIRENDRA KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench