Cr.MMO 99 of 2011 4.7.2011 Present: Mr. Bhupinder Pathania, Advocate, for the petitioner. The petitioner challenges two orders by way of this petition. By the first order dated 15th February, 2011, the learned Magistrate closed the eivdence of the petitioner herein who was the respondent in the trial Court. There is no doubt in mind that the statement of fact made by the petitioner herein before the learned trial Magistrate prompted him to pass this order. The second order challenged is dated 26th May, 2011 declining the permission to the petitioner herein to lead expert evidence to prove some interpolation etc. in the cheque issued by the petitioner, which, according to him, has caused grave prejudice. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relies upon the decision of the Supreme Court in T. Nagappa vs. Y.R. Muralidhar, AIR 2008 SC 2010 to urge that it is a right/fundamental right of the petitioner herein to lead evidence in defence. There is no doubt so far as this proposition is concerned. However, from the conduct of the petitioner herein, what I find is that he had himself given up the opportunity to examine the witness on 15th February, 2011 and moved an application under Section 243 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for leading expert evidence. The case is now listed for consideration of application moved by the petitioner herein under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In these circumstances, I do not intend to pass any order in this petition save and except that it will be open to the petitioner herein to urge before the learned Appellate Court, if the decision is contrary to him, that the rejection of application under Section 243 Cr.P.C. has caused prejudice and his trial has been vitiated because of this fundamental error. Petition stands disposed of. July 04, 2011 (Dev Darshan Sud), (ms) Judge