Defence witness summons under CrPC cannot be denied unless the request is vexatious, dilatory, or meant to defeat justice.

Section 243(2) CrPC protects an accused's right, after entering defence, to seek process for attendance of defence witnesses or production of documents; refusal is justified only where the request is vexatious, dilatory, or intended to defeat justice. The article notes that this safeguard applies in complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as part of a fair trial. It further states that closing defence evidence because the case was a complaint matter or because the accused had not produced the witnesses personally was not a legally sustainable basis. Where witness details are incomplete, the proper course is to require correction rather than deny the defence opportunity altogether.

---

---

Issues: Whether refusal to allow the accused further opportunity to summon and examine defence witnesses in a complaint case under the Negotiable Instruments Act was justified under Section 243(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The statutory scheme under Section 243(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 gives an accused who has entered upon his defence a right to seek process for attendance of witnesses or production of documents, and refusal is permissible only when the request is shown to be for vexation, delay, or defeating the ends of justice. The right to adduce defence evidence is part of a fair trial and a valuable safeguard for rebutting the prosecution case, including in proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The reasons recorded by the trial court and affirmed in revision, namely that the case was a complaint case and that the accused had not produced the witnesses on his own, did not amount to a legally sustainable ground under Section 243(2). If particulars of witnesses were deficient, the proper course was to require correction, not to close the defence evidence altogether.

Conclusion: The refusal to grant summons and further opportunity to the defence witnesses was unsustainable and was set aside; the matter was sent back for reconsideration of the accused's fresh request in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: An accused's right to summon defence witnesses cannot be denied in a summons trial unless the request is specifically found to be vexatious, dilatory, or intended to defeat justice, and mere procedural inadequacy in the witness list is not enough to close the defence.

---