23 % 24.02.2011 Present: Mr. Vijay K. Gupta and Mr. Amit Kumar, Advs. for the petitioner. Crl. M.A. No. 2277/2011 (exemptionl Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application stands disposed of. + Crl. M.C. No. 586/2011 * 1. By way of present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., petitioner has prayed that order dated 18^^ January, 2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in Criminal Revision Petition No. 141/2010 be set aside and petitioner be permitted to adduce remainiag evidence before the Trial Court. 2. Revision petition was filed by the petitioner before the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi against the order dated 1®^ December, 2010 passed by Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, whereby an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., of the petitioner, had been dismissed. 3. Courts below have noted that petitioner had failed to lead evidence despite opportunities granted to him. Respondent had Signing Date:16.08.2024 17:08:58 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the petitioner sometime in the month of March, 2006. Respondent concluded its evidence way back ia the month of July, 2007. Statement of petitioner was even recorded on 5*^ July, 2007. Thereafter, opportunity was granted to the petitioner to lead defence evidence. Defence evidence was closed on 21®^ November, 2007. Later, on an application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C., he was permitted to lead further defence evidence on 24th January, 2008. Siace petitioner failed to conclude evidence, defence evidence was closed on 19^^ July, 2008. Even thereafter, again opportunity was granted to the petitioner to lead additional evidence on petitioner filing an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. However, since petitioner failed to conclude evidence this time also, evidence was closed on 24^ May, 2010. Petitioner again filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for adducing remaining evidence, which has been dismissed by the order dated 1st December, 2010. 4. From the facts narrated above, it is abundantly clear that sufficient opportunities had been granted to the petitioner to lead evidence. It is not the case that Trial Court has closed evidence of 3. the petitioner in a hasty manner and without affordiQg sufficient opportunities to hitn. 5. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any perversity ia the order impugned. Petition is dismissed being devoid of merits. FEBRUARY 24, 2011 rb .K. PATHAK, J.