1. Issue notice.

2. Mr. Jitendra Ojha accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2. Learned Public Prosecutor has also put in appearance on behalf of respondent No. 1.

3. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard for final disposal at this stage.

4. In brief, facts of the case are that a complaint as per provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was filed against the petitioner by respondent Amritpal Singh on 6.9.2006. An explanation of the petitioner was recorded on 20.12.2007. On 21.2.2008, the matter was fixed before the Trial Court for recording defence evidence. An application was submitted by the petitioner as per provisions of Sections 45 and 73 of the Evidence Act on 21.2.2008 for examination of handwriting, but the same was rejected. The matter was then fixed for recording defence evidence on 3.4.2008, but due to certain reasons the matter was adjourned. The matter was then further adjourned on 8.5.2008, 26.6.2008, 26.3.2009, 20.5.2009 and 2.7.2009. An application under Sections 45 and 73 of the Evidence Act was again preferred on 24.7.2009. The application aforesaid was rejected 5.3.2010 and the matter was then fixed for recording defence evidence on 6.3.2010. The Trial Court on 6.3.2010 closed the defence evidence. Being aggrieved by the same, a revision petition was filed by the petitioner before the learned Sessions Court, which was transferred for its adjudication to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Hanumangarh. The revision petition also came to be rejected on 6.12.2010.

5. On contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the application under Sections 45 and 73 of the Evidence Act was rejected on 5.3.2010 and the matter then was fixed on the very next day for recording defence evidence. It is asserted that adequate breathing time should have been granted by the Trial Court to produce the defence evidence. Shri Ojha appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2 Amritpal Singh pointed out that as a matter of fact, number of opportunities were given to the petitioner to produce defence evidence, but he did not choose to avail the same. Despite the above fact, it is submitted that the respondent is agreeable to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to adduce evidence in defence, if he avails the same in one time.

6. Having considered the statement aforesaid and looking to the fact that the principles of natural justice also demand for recording the defence evidence, I am inclined to accept this petition with cost. The orders impugned order dated 6.12.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Hanumangarh and dated 6.3.2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Pilihanga in Criminal Case No. 638 of 2006 are quashed. The petitioner may be permitted to adduce defence evidence on 12.1.2011, the day on which, the matter is fixed before the Trial Court, subject to payment of a cost in a tune of Rs. 2500/- to respondent No. 2 Amritpal Singh, and in tune of Rs. 1000/- to the Court revenue. No further opportunity shall be granted to the petitioner to adduce defence evidence.Revision Petition Accepted.

*******