Mohan Singh Lodhi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:22090
1 CRR-354-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA YADAV
th
ON THE 20 OF JULY, 2026
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 354 of 2026
MOHAN SINGH LODHI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Sankalp Sharma - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Manish Saxena - Public Prosecutor for the State.
ORDER
The present revision has been filed under Section 438 read with
Section 442 of the BNSS against the order dated 13.01.2026 passed by the
learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Ganj Basoda, Distt. Vidisha in
S.T.No.61/2021, whereby the application filed by the petitioners under
Section 256 of BNSS for summoning certain witnesses in defence has partly
been rejected.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are facing trial for the
offence under Section 302 of IPC before the trial Court. After conclusion of
prosecution evidence and subsequent recording of the statement of the
accused under Section 351 of BNSS (corresponding to Section 313 of
Cr.P.C.), the learned Trial Court called upon the petitioners to enter on their
defence. Thereafter, the petitioners filed an application under Section 256 of
BNSS mentioning a list of 24 witnesses to be summoned in support of their
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MADHU
SOODAN PRASAD
Signing time: 7/24/2026
10:04:07 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:22090
2 CRR-354-2026
defence. The learned Trial Court by the impugned order dated 13.01.2026

partly rejected the application. Hence, the present revision has been filed.
3.Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the action of the
Trial Court in partly rejecting the application under Section 256 of BNSS is
not in accordance with law because the Court cannot refuse the request of the
accused to examine a witness unless the Court finds that the application is
made for the purpose of vexation and delay. In the present case, the learned
Trial Court has recorded no such finding of vexation or delay. Learned
counsel for the petitioners also submitted that the learned Trial Court has
exercised its discretion in selecting the witnesses, by which restricted the
number of witnesses sought to be summoned by the petitioners in their
defence. Under Section 256 of BNSS the learned Trial Court has no such
power. An application under Section 256 of BNSS can be rejected only after
recording a finding with respect to vexation or delay. In absence of such
finding, rejection of the application partly is not sustainable.
4.Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the
revision and prayed for its dismissal.
5.Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6.Before dealing with the merits of the case, it would be apt to
consider the relevant provision of Section 256 of BNSS which reads as under
:-
"256. (1) Where the accused is not acquitted under section
255, he shall be called upon to enter on his defence and
adduce any evidence he may have in support thereof.
(2) If the accused puts in any written statement, the Judge
shall file it with the record.
(3) If the accused applies for the issue of any process for
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MADHU
SOODAN PRASAD
Signing time: 7/24/2026
10:04:07 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:22090
3 CRR-354-2026
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."

7.A plain reading of Section 256 of BNSS, makes it clear that if an
accused after entering in his defence applies to the Judge to issue any
process for compelling the attendance of any witness for the purpose of
examination or cross-examination or seeks production of any document or
other thing, the Judge is oblige to issue such process unless he considers that
application has been made for the purpose of vexation or delay or for
defeating the ends of justice, in which case, he may refuse such application
for the reasons to be recorded.
8.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.Nagappa v.
Y.R.Muralidhar, (2008) 5 SCC 633 considering the scope of Section 243(2)
of Cr.P.C. held as under :-
"9. What should be the nature of evidence is not a matter
which should be left only to the discretion of the Court. It is
the accused who knows how to prove his defence. It is true
that the court being the master of the proceedings must
determine as to whether the application filed by the accused
in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 243 of the Code is
bona fide or not or whether thereby he intends to bring on
record a relevant material. But ordinarily an accused should
be allowed to approach the court for obtaining its assistance
with regard to summoning of witnesses etc. If permitted to
do so, steps therefor, however, must be taken within a limited
time. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the accused
should not be allowed to unnecessarily protrac the trial or
summon witnesses whose evidence would not be at all
relevant."
(Emphasis supplied)
9.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.Nagappa (supra) has
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MADHU
SOODAN PRASAD
Signing time: 7/24/2026
10:04:07 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:22090
4 CRR-354-2026
further held that an accused has a right to fair trial and this is fundamental

right as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. If the
accused intends to bring a witness in his defence and does not intend to
protract the trial or his prayer is not vexatious, then in the interest of justice
his prayer ought to be allowed.
10.In view of the law laid down by by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is
clear that under Section 256 of BNSS it is obligatory on the part of the trial
Court to issue process when the accused seeks summoning of any witness or
production of any document in his defence. The only ground on which such
an application can be refused is if the same was vexatious, delayed or would
defeat the ends of justice. It is also amply clear that the accused has all the
right to lead evidence to rebut the case of the prosecution. If the same is
denied, the same would amount to denial of an opportunity to the accused to
prove his innocence. The trial Court is bound to issue process where there is
nothing to show that the attempt of the accused is to defeat the ends of
justice.
11.If on the anvil of such proposition of law, the impugned order is
tested, in the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned order does not
fulfill the requirement of the provisions contained in Section 256 of BNSS.
The learned trial Court has considered the application and selected the
witnesses for defence by recording that not more than one witness for
establishing each fact, which is to be established, is sufficient. The learned
trial Court has not recorded any finding that application has been filed for the
purpose of vexation or delay or for defeating the ends of justice. In absence
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MADHU
SOODAN PRASAD
Signing time: 7/24/2026
10:04:07 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:22090
5 CRR-354-2026
of such finding, rejection of the application partly is not in accordance with

law.
12.Resultantly, this revision is allowed by setting aside that part of the
impugned order which relates to rejection of application under Section 256
of BNSS. The application under Section 256 of BNSS is allowed. Learned
trial Court is directed to proceed further.
(PUSHPENDRA YADAV)
JUDGE
ms/-

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MADHU
SOODAN PRASAD
Signing time: 7/24/2026
10:04:07 AM