ORDER D.P. Uniyal, J. - This is an application in revision from the judgment of the Sessions Judge affirming the order of the magistrate refusing Ito summon a defence witness on the ground that the accused had failed to deposit expenses for the same. 2. The offence for which the accused was being tried was one u/s 420 IPC, an offence triable by a Magistrate unless the latter was of the opinion that the circumstances were such that it should be committed for trial to the Sessions Court. However, it may be stated that the magistrate proceeded with the trial of the accused under Ch. XXI. After the accused had entered on his defence he applied for summoning a handwriting expert as a witness in his defence. The Magistrate directed the accused to deposit expenses for the same, but the latter failed to do so with the result that his application was rejected. He filed a revision against that order in the court of Sessions, which was dismissed. Hence this revision application in this Court. 3. The submission on behalf of the Applicant was that the point in issue was covered by the provisions of Section 257 Sub-section (1) which enacts that "if the accused after he has entered upon his defence applies to the Magistrate to issue process for compelling the attendance of any witness for the purpose of examination or cross examination...the Magistrate shall issue such process unless he considers that the application has been made on frivolous grounds". It shall be noticed that Section 257 is applicable to a case instituted on complaint and is not attracted where the accused is prosecuted on a police report, as was the case here. Indeed Sub-section (2) of Section 257 enjoins that the Magistrate may, before summoning any witness on the application of the accused, require that his reasonable expenses incurred in attending the court be deposited. Thus in a complaint case the court may insist upon the accused to deposit the expenses of a defence witness before issuing process to him. Where, however, an accused is prosecuted on j a police report the provision applicable is Section 251A. Thus in a complaint case the court may insist upon the accused to deposit the expenses of a defence witness before issuing process to him. Where, however, an accused is prosecuted on j a police report the provision applicable is Section 251A. Sub-section (9) of that section provides that if the accused after he his entered upon his defence applies to the Magistrate to issue any process for compelling the attendance of any witness for the purpose of examination or cross examination the Magistrate shall issue such process unless he considers the application to be frivolous. Sub-section (10) adds a rider to Sub-section (9) and lays down that the Magistrate may before summoning any witness under Sub-section (9) require that his reasonable expenses incurred in attending for the purpose of the trial be deposited in court. So that if an accused seeks to call a witness in his defence he cannot Insist on summons being issued without first depositing the expenses of the witness for attending the court. 4. Learned Counsel invited my attention to Clause (11) of Section 207A which provides that when the accused has given in a list of witnesses under Sub-section (9) and has been committed for trial the Magistrate shall summon the witnesses included in the list to appear before the court to which the accused has been committed. From this it was sought to be contended that the accused was not required to deposit any expenses of summoning a defence witness in evidence. It will be noticed that Section 207-A falls in Chapter XVIII which relates to inquiry into cases triable by the court of Session or High Court. In the present case the magistrate was not holding an inquiry under Ch. XVIII. He was trying the accused under Ch. XXI and, it is not permissible to call in aid the provisions of Section 207-A. 5. It was said that u/s 544 criminal courts have been given discretion to order payment, on the part of the Government, of the reasonable expenses of any complainant or witnesses attending for the purpose of any inquiry or trial. But the section itself lays down that the powers mentioned in the section may be exercised by the court subject to any rules made by the State Government. The State Govt. But the section itself lays down that the powers mentioned in the section may be exercised by the court subject to any rules made by the State Government. The State Govt. has in Rule 39 of the General Rules (Criminal) provided that the payment of reasonable expenses to complainants and witnesses attending criminal courts for the purpose of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding shall be regulated by the rules framed by the Government u/s 544 of the Code contained in Notification No. 1793/vi-2234-40 dated July 11, 1941. Appendix 'I' mentions the circumstances in which a criminal court may order payment of expenses on the part of the Government for attendance of a complainant or witness. By the notification aforesaid magistrates are not empowered to summon defence witnesses without calling upon the accused to deposit the expenses of their attending the court. There is thus no provision in the Code which may exempt an accused person from depositing costs of summoning a defence witness. I am, therefore, of the view that the order passed by the magistrate was legally correct. 6. The application made by the accused for summoning the expert is dated 27-8-63. In that application he had clearly stated that he was prepared to defray the expenses of summoning the witness. In the circumstances it is too late in the day for the accused to contend that he was not obliged to pay expenses for summoning the witness. Of course, the magistrate has discretion to examine any witness u/s 540 Code of Criminal Procedure. Whether in the circumstances of this case the Magistrate should exercise his jurisdiction in favour of the accused is a matter on which I need not comment. 7. I find no force in this application in revision which is accordingly rejected.