Crl.Misc.No.M- 169 of 2010 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M- 169 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 26.7.2011 Bhup Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.S.K.Chauhan, Advocate for Mr.R.M.Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Amandeep Singh, AAG, Haryana. Mr.Adarsh Jain, Advocate, for respondent No.2. **** SABINA, J. Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C. for short) for quashing the order dated 10.12.2009 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Sessions Judge. Respondent No.2 moved a complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Crl.Misc.No.M- 169 of 2010 (O&M) 2 (for short- “ the Act”). During the pendency of the petition, an application was moved by the complainant that the statement of the petitioner be recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Vide order dated 10.6.2009 (Annexure P-6), the trial Court allowed the said petition and adjourned the case for recording of the statement of the petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner preferred a revision petition and the same was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge vide impugned order dated 10.12.2009 (Annexure P-7). Hence, the present petition. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. The complainant has filed a petition under Section 138 of the Act against the petitioner. During the trial it transpired that due to inadvertence, statement of the petitioner had not been recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In order to avoid any illegality, an application was moved by the complainant for recording of the statement of the petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The said application was liable to be allowed and was consequently, allowed by the trial Court. The trial Court, however, restricted the petitioner that he was only entitled to examine limited witnesses as his defence evidence had already been closed by order. The petitioner was also provided a counsel through Legal Aid. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide impugned order, held that after recording of the statement of the accused/ petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he would be given adequate opportunity to lead his defence evidence. The trial Court shall consider as per law the number of opportunities to be given to the petitioner and the witnesses to be examined by the Crl.Misc.No.M- 169 of 2010 (O&M) 3 petitioner. The order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is just and proper. No ground for interference by this Court is made out. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE July 26, 2011 anita