1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.2394/2008 General Motor Finance vs. State of Raj. & Anr. Date of Order: 28.1.2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BHANWAROO KHAN Mr. J.P.Gargey for the petitioner. Mr. K.S.Chandel, P.P. The petitioner is facing trial for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.9, Jaipur City, Jaipur. During the course of trial, after recording the statement of the accused petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was moved on behalf of the petitioner for production of his defence witnesses. The trial court after hearing both the sides rejected the application vide order dated 24.9.2008. Feeling aggrieved of the order passed by the trial court, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.5, Jaipur City, Jaipur, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 18.11.2008. Hence, this misc.petition. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned P.P. and perused the impugned orders passed 2 by the courts below. On perusal of the impugned orders the undisputed facts which born out are that on 24.9.2008 the petitioner submitted an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for production of his witnesses whereas his statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded on 16.5.2008 and thereafter opportunities for leading his defence was given on 9.6.2008, 21.6.2008 and 16.7.2008. The accused examined himself on 31.7.2008 and thereafter the application under section 311 Cr.P.C. was moved. It is true that opportunity of leading defence evidence should be provided to the accused. In the facts and circumstances of the case it cannot be said that unwarranted or more opportunities have been given to the petitioner for leading defence evidence. Production of defence evidence is the right of the accused what the courts have to ascertain that it should not be used by the accused with an intention to delay the trial of the case. As per the order dated 24.9.2008 it seems that three opportunities were provided to the petitioner and on the fourth opportunity the petitioner examined himself under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Thus, I am of the opinion that in the facts and circumtances of the case it is a fit case where opportunity should have been given to the petitioner for producing his defence evidence. 3 Since the matter is at the final stage and as per the list of the defence witnesses submitted by the petitioner four witnesses are to be examined, it shall be the responsibility of the petitioner to get them served and shall try to produce them on the date fixed by the trial court in this respect. In case the petitioner fails to serve the summons or the bailable warrants as the case may be, no further opportunity will be provided to him. The summons or the bailable warrants issued for appearance of the defence witnesses be given `dasti' to the petitioner who shall get them served within a reasonable time and no unnecssary adjournments for producing defence witnesses will be granted. Consequently, this misc. petition is allowed. The order dated 24.9.2008 of the trial court and also the order dated 18.11.2008 that of the revisional court are set aside and the petitioner is directed to produce and examine both the witnesses on the date fixed by the trial court in the manner stated hereinabove. BHANWAROO KHAN,J. bairwa 4 S.B.Criminal Misc. Stay Application No.1647/2008 in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.2394/2008 General Motor Finance vs. State of Raj. & Anr. Date of Order: 28.1.2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BHANWAROO KHAN Mr. J.P.Gargey for the petitioner. Mr. K.S.Chandel, P.P. Since the main petition has been disposed of finally, this stay application also stands disposed of. BHANWAROO KHAN,J. bairwa