ORDER 1. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. 2. In this petition under section 482 of CrPC, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 26.2.2019 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, District Shivpuri in Criminal Case No. 2518/2015, whereby, application filed by the petitioner/accused under section 254(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure (for brevity, "CrPC") for summoning defence witnesses has been rejected. 3. Brief facts leading to filing of this case are that petitioner is an accused and has been facing trial for the charge under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (for brevity, "N.I. Act"). The allegation against the petitioner is that he has issued post dated cheque No. 076094 dated 1.8.2015 of Rs. 27,56,076/- in favour of the complainant/respondent towards the earnest money deposit in a tender process for obtaining a liquor shop which was dishonoured due to the reason "insufficient fund". 4. The defence of the petitioner is that he issued post dated cheque in favour of the complainant at the time of tender process and since his license was cancelled, therefore, the complainant could not have filled the excess amount in the disputed cheque. 5. The complainant/respondent has admitted in his cross examination that excess amount was entered in the cheque i.e. more than to which he was entitled. 6. For the purpose of bringing correct facts on record, the petitioner moved an application under section 254 (2) of CrPC at the stage of defence evidence for summoning the Manager of State Bank of India, Branch Madhav Chowk, Shivpuri along with record of the disputed cheque before the trial Court. 7. The trial Court rejected the application on the ground that said application has been moved for the purpose of delaying the trial. The petitioner could have summoned the witnesses at earlier point of time. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the trial Court failed to consider the fact that the petitioner sought summoning of the Bank Manager along with record just for the purpose of putting correct facts on records. It is settled legal position that Magistrate cannot refuse to examine the witnesses sought to be summoned by the accused in defence. Section 254 of CrPC applies to defence also. Proviso does not debar the accused for examining the witnesses in defence. It is settled legal position that Magistrate cannot refuse to examine the witnesses sought to be summoned by the accused in defence. Section 254 of CrPC applies to defence also. Proviso does not debar the accused for examining the witnesses in defence. The witness which is sought to be summoned is a Government servant, therefore, petitioner is not in a position to call him directly before the trial Court for his deposition. In such circumstances, application ought to have been allowed. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the contention raised by the petitioner and submitted that order passed by the trial Court is just and proper needs no interference and the instant petition deserves to be dismissed. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 11. It is settled legal position that Magistrate is bound to examine all the witnesses desired to be summoned by the accused. He has no discretion in the matter. The examination of the defence witnesses are necessary to bring the truth on record so as to reach at a fair and proper decision. It is also admitted position that as per section 254 of CrPC, Magistrate is not bound to issue process to compel attendance of any witness either on the application of the complainant or accused, but only with a view to conduct fair and proper trial, it becomes necessary to summon the witnesses so that no injustice is meted out on either of the party. 12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that trial Court has failed to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 26.2.2019 (Annexure A-1) is hereby set aside. Application under section 254 (2) of CrPC filed by the petitioner stands allowed. The trial Court is directed to summon the defence witnesses as prayed in the application after getting deposit of reasonable expenses from the petitioner towards expenses of witnesses for attending the trial. The trial Court is further directed to proceed with the trial in accordance with law and conclude it as expeditiously as possible. With the aforesaid, the instant petition stands allowed. ................