JUDGMENT :- Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 3. The applicant-original complainant in a case for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, assails the order dated 16.8.2012 rejecting his application for examining a witness from shop and establishment department. The application was rejected on the ground that the application for witness summons preferred failed to disclose the relevancy of the evidence proposed to be adduced in the said case. 4. The perusal of the application also does not reveal any such reason was mentioned therein. Thus, prima facie, the order impugned cannot be faulted. However, it is a cardinal rule of a criminal trial requires parties at the trial receiving equal fair opportunity, to place respective case before the court by adducing the evidence relating to the matters in question, as made permissible under provisions of procedural law. 5. In the circumstances, in the interest of justice, warrants giving an opportunity to the applicant to apply afresh incorporating the reason for which he intends to adduce the evidence of a witness for which he is seeking the summons. In event of any such application being preferred, the trial court shall decide the same in accordance with the law and uninfluenced by earlier rejection ordered vide order dated 16.8.2012. 6. The application stands disposed of accordingly. 7. Rule is made absolute in above terms. Ordered accordingly.