Vinod Prasad, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri S.K. Chaturvedi learned Counsel in support of this writ petition, Sri H.C. Yadav learned Counsel representing the Respondent No. 2 and learned A.G.A.
(2.) CHALLENGE in this writ petition by the Petitioner is to the order dated 3.10.2007 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, court No. 6, Jhansi, in Case No. 3046 of 2007 Mahesh Chandra v. Mangal Das under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, Police Station Prem Nagar, District Jhansi. By the impugned order, at the stage of final arguments, trial Magistrate has taken the judgment dated 23.8.2007 on record but has refused to consider it in evidence. Challenge to the impugned order by the Petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 84 of 2007 Mangal Das v. State of U.P. and Ors. before Sessions Judge, Jhansi, was also repelled as Sessions Judge vide its impugned order dated 6.10.2007 confirmed the order of the trial Magistrate. Hence this writ petition challenging both the impugned orders.
(3.) PERUSAL of the impugned order dated 3.10.2007 indicates that accused person is being prosecuted under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act. In trial, on 5.6.2006, accused closed his evidence by noting on the order sheet that he does not want to lead defence evidence. On the basis of such a noting, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, court No. 7, Jhansi, closed defence evidence and fixed the case for final arguments. Subsequently, on 31.5.2006, accused filed an application that he wants to bring on record copy of a plaint.;