1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD Cri. Writ Petition No. 57/2010 Vilas Sudhakar Shinde ( V. ) Smt. Smita Vilson Gaikwad Mr. S.G. Shinde, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. V.S. Kadam h/f Mr. K.B. Autade, Advocate for respondent. CORAM : [A.V. NIRGUDE, J.] ORAL ORDER : - 1. Heard. 2 Rule. 3 Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of counsel for both parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing. 4 The petitioner is the accused in Criminal case No.768/2006 which the respondent no. 1 initiated under the provision of section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 5 It is the case of the respondent that the petitioner in discharge of his legal liability, issued her a cheque of Rs.2,50,000/-. She said that the cheque failed and therefore, she filed the complaint. After the plea was recorded, the respondent adduced her evidence and stated her case on oath. After she closed her case, the learned Magistrate directed the petitioner to record his statement under 2 section 313 of Cr.P.C.. The petitioner at that time, requested the learned Magistrate that he would first lead his evidence in defence and thereafter would record his statement under section 313 of Cr.P.C.. The learned Magistrate rejected this request and directed him to first record his statement under section 313 of Cr.P.C. 6 Aggrieved by the order of the learned Magistrate, the petitioner went first to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-1, Shrirampur. The learned Judge dismissed the revision. The learned Advocate appearing for petitioner asserted that his request to record his defence evidence prior to recording his statement under section 313 of Cr.P.C. is permissible in view of Section 254 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned judge of the revisional Court considered the provisions of Section 254 of Cr.P.C. and Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code in juxtaposition and recorded his finding that the provision of Section 254 of Cr.P.C. , will not take precedence over the provision of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. I find no error in this finding and so the writ petition should fail. Thus writ petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. Dt : 3rd May,2010 [A.V. NIRGUDE, J.] tsk/