Justice V.K. Sharma, J. (Oral). The petitioner herein, who is the accused in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, had filed two applications, under Sections 45 of the Indian Evidence Act and 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which came to be dismissed by the learned trial Magistrate vide the impugned order dated 9.8.20 11.

2. Admittedly, the accused had led evidence in defence which was ultimately closed by order of the Court. It was at the stage of final arguments that the aforesaid applications were moved.

3.In support of the contentions raised by the accused in the present revision petition, reliance has been placed on a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in T. Nagappa v. Y.R. Muralidhar, AIR 2008 Supreme Court 2010 (para 8) and a judgment of this Court in CrMMO No. 251 of 2010, Sandeep Kumar versus Chhaju Ram & anr decided on 27.4.20 11. In so far the proposition of law laid down in these authorities that the accused has a legal right to lead evidence and cannot be denied such right and that it is up to the trial Court to appreciate the said evidence, there can be no dispute with the same. However, the fact remains that in the pr