1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRI.APPLICATION NO.1266 OF 2008 (MR. LALLU BANWARILAL VARMA VS. RAMPRASAD RAMVILAS AGRAWAL & ANR.) _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders ______________________________________________________________________________________________ Shri R.S.Renu, Advocate for Applicant. Shri M.M.Ekre, A.P.P. for Respondent. CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATED : OCTOBER 23, 2008. 1. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur on 27th March, 2008, whereby the learned Magistrate rejected the application by the applicant/ accused for time to tender defence evidence. 2. The original complainant, represented by Advocate Shri Kotwal, has filed reply, stating that the applicant was protracting the proceedings. 3. Perused contents of the application and reply. Heard both the learned counsel for the parties. 2 4. The applicant should have realised that the moment prosecution evidence was over, he was obliged to tender whatever defence evidence he wanted to and that protracting trial was not in anybody's interest. The learned trial Magistrate has observed that on the previous date he had indicated that no further time would be granted to the accused for examining remaining witnesses. In spite of this, the application was made. 5. However, in order to ensure that the applicant gets one last opportunity of adducing evidence, so that there is no feeling of denial of justice, this application is allowed and the impugned order is set aside granting one more opportunity to the applicant to tender evidence on 24th November, 2008, subject to convenience of the learned trial Magistrate, on the condition that the applicant shall deposit, before the trial Court, a sum of Rs.Five Thousand towards costs for dragging the respondent to this Court needlessly on account of applicant's own lapse. All costs saddled by the trial Court, thus far would merge in these costs of Rs. Five Thousand. 3 6. If the costs are not deposited before 21st November, 2008 the trial Magistrate would proceed further with the matter. 7. Costs, if deposited, shall be paid to the original complainant. JUDGE RR.