JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioners are facing trial for an offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track No. 2, Hanumangarh. After completion of prosecution evidence, an opportunity was accorded to the petitioners to explain their conduct with regard to the adverse circumstances available in the prosecution evidence. 2. Subsequent thereto, an application was filed by the petitioners as per the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 233 Cr.P.C. for calling defence witnesses. In the application, the petitioners cited eight persons to be called for in defence. Learned trial Court by order impugned 3.12.2010 partly accepted the a i.cation and ordered to summon first five persons to depose in defence. The application stood rejected for remaining three persons. 3. At the threshold, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he is not pressing this application to the extent, it relates to call Dr. Neena Chouhan who conducted autopsy on the person of deceased. However, it is stated that so far as other two persons are concerned, they are quite relevant witnesses and they are required to be called for in defence. It is urged that Bhagla Ram Meena was Station House Officer at Police Station Nohar, at the relevant time and he entered 'Rojnamcha' report on 11.9.2008 for the incident to which the F.I.R. dated 12.9.2008 relates. Thus, he is a person quite relevant to explain the circumstance. With regard to Manager, BSNL, Nohar region, it is submitted that he is also required to explain the events by producing relevant documents relating to telephonic contact from telephone No. 9793039275 to 01502/210517 from 11.9.2008 to 12.9.2008. The call details of the period aforesaid, as per learned counsel for the petitioners is quite relevant to explain the circumstances and to substantiate the defence of the accused persons. 4. Learned trial Court rejected the application of the petitioners relating to above referred two persons mainly on the count that the Investigating Officer has already been examined and an opportunity was granted to cross-examine him, therefore, now calling upon Station House Officer shall be of no use. With regard to Manager, BSNL, the trial Court held that his calling shall not be relevant and will cause only delay in completion of the trial. 5. With regard to Manager, BSNL, the trial Court held that his calling shall not be relevant and will cause only delay in completion of the trial. 5. After going through the facts of the case, it reveals that though the Investigating Officer was called for and an opportunity was given to the petitioners to cross-examine him but, he was not the person who entered 'Rojnamcha' report on 11.9.2008, as such, for the fact aforesaid, he is not a witness relevant. It is only the Station House Officer who entered 'Rojnamcha' report on 11.9.2008, thus, he is a witness relevant for the issue aforesaid. Similarly the Manager, BSNL, Nohar zone is the officer competent to provide necessary details of the calls made from telephone No. 9793039275 to 01502-210517 from 11.9.2008 to 12.9.2008 as such, their calling in defence appears to be justified. 6. In view of the peculiar facts narrated above, this petition deserves acceptance, therefore, the same is allowed. The trial Court is directed to summon Station House Officer, Police Station, Nohar along with relevant record as mentioned in the application concerned, and also the Manager, BSNL, Nohar zone with record referred in the application to depose before the Court as defence witness.Petition allowed. *******