JUDGMENT 1. - The instant misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioner challenging the order dated 26.7.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Sessions Case No.94/2011, whereby the learned Sessions Judge, Metropolitan whilst summoning the defense witnesses under Section 233 Cr.P.C. has directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 1500/- per witness as cost. 2. The learned Public Prosecutor has accepted the notices on behalf of the State and at the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor, the matter is being finally heard and decided. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no provision in Section 233 Cr.P.C. for imposition of expenses on the accused defense witnesses in a sessions trial and he, therefore, prays that the misc. petition be accepted and the order impugned be quashed.A perusal of Section 233 Cr.P.C. reveals that the said provision entitles the accused facing a sessions to apply to the trial Court to issue process for compelling the attendance of the witnesses or production of any document or thing. Sub-clause (3) of Section 233 Cr.P.C. is reproduced hereinbelow: "233. Entering upon defence.- (1)..... (2) .... (3) If the accused applies for the issue of any process for compelling the attendance of any witness or the production of any document or thing, the Judge shall issue such process unless he considers, for reasons to be recorded, that such application should be refused on the ground that it is made for the purpose of vexation or delay or for defeating the ends of justice." 4. A bare perusal of the above quoted provision makes it clear that the provision does not provide imposition of any expenses on the accused for summoning the defence witness. The legislature has delibereately made a distinction and in warrant cases instituted on Police report and in sessions cases as regards the procedure for summoning defence witnesses. As per Section 243(3) Cr.P.C. the Magistrate can direct the accused to incur the reasonable expenses for summoning the defense witnesses. Such is not the position in a sessions trial because Section 233(3) does not warrant imposition of any expenses for summoning defence witnesses in a sessions trial. Therefore, the order impugned dated 26.7.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur Metropolitan directing the petitioner to deposit expenses in the sum of Rs. Such is not the position in a sessions trial because Section 233(3) does not warrant imposition of any expenses for summoning defence witnesses in a sessions trial. Therefore, the order impugned dated 26.7.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur Metropolitan directing the petitioner to deposit expenses in the sum of Rs. 7500/- for summoning the defence witnesses cannot be sustained. 5. The misc. petition is, therefore, allowed. The order dated 26.7.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur Metropolitan is hereby quashed and the now trial Court shall permit the accused to lead evidence in defence by summoning and examining the witnesses.Petition allowed. *******