This revision case has been filed against the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Krishnagiri in STC No.1125 of 2015 dated 20.04.2017. The petitioner herein is the accused in the said case filed by the respondent/complainant for the alleged offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881.

2. In the said case, examination of witness on the complainant's side was over. Thereafter, chances were given to the petitioner/accused to produce her defence side witness. However, when those opportunities were given, the petitioner has not chosen to produce any witness on her behalf. Thereafter, at the time of arguments' stage, the petitioner wanted to examine herself and in this regard, she wanted to invoke Section 315 of Cr.P.C and had requested the Trial Court to permit her to be examined as defence side witness.

3. The said petition filed under Section 315 of Cr.P.C to permit the petitioner/accused to furnish her side evidence has been rejected by the impugned order dated 20.04.2017, against which the present revision has been filed.

4. I have heard Mr. Sankarasubbu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. M.Balaji, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

5. Mr. Sankarasubbu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the right of the accused to depose as witness is protected under Section 315 of the Code and no time limit has been prescribed under the said provision as to at which stage the said petition is to be filed invoking Section 315 of the Code and therefore, the reason adduced by the learned Judge in rejecting the plea of the petitioner filed under Section 315 of the Code is wholly unsustainable and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be interfered with.

6. Per contra, Mr. M.Balaji, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit under Section 254(2) of the Code, it is for the Magistrate, if he thinks fit, may, on the application of prosecution or the accused, issue a summon to any witness directing her to attend or to produce any document or other thing. In view of the said provision, since the said discretion is available with the Magistrate to exercise his power to summon any witness either from the prosecution side or from the accused side on application, it cannot be said that merely because application was filed by the petitioner under Section 315 of the Code, it mandates that the Magistrate himself can permit the petitioner to examine herself as one of the witnesses on her side.

7. The learned counsel for the respondent would also submit that though no specific time limit has been prescribed under Section 315 of the Code to invoke the provision on the side of the accused, it cannot be construed that at any stage of the trial, that is even after questioning under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and at the stage of arguments, such kind of petition can be entertained under Section 315 of the Code.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent in support of his contention has relied upon the judgment of the Jharkhand High Court in the case of Md.Sayeed v. State of Jharkhand reported in 2006 CRI.L.J.4498.

9. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for both parties and perused the materials placed on record.

10. The learned Judge in the impugned order has stated that after questioning under Section 313(1)(b) of the Code on 03.02.2012, the case was posted for defence side evidence on 10.02.2017, 21.02.2017 and 28.02.2017. Since the petitioner did not show any interest in letting in evidence on her side as defence witness in spite of enough opportunities having been given to the petitioner, the Trial Court on 28.02.2017, closed the defence side witness.

11. It is further recorded by the Trial Court Judge in the impugned order that thereafter, the case was posted for arguments on 22.03.2017 and 06.04.2017. On 06.04.2017, the complainant's side filed written argument. However, the petitioner had filed a petition under Section 205 of the Code citing medical grou