ASHIM KUMAR ROY, J. - (1.) THE petitioner, who happens to be an accused in a case relating to an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, challenge an order whereby the Learned Trial Court rejected his prayer for adduc ing defence evidence.
(2.) HEARD Mr. Apurba Kumar Dutta, learned advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Perused the impugned order. Mr. Dutta, learned advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted before this Court that the Learned Court below rejected the petitioner's prayer for adducing defence evidence simply because that in his cross- examination under Section 313 of the Code, the accused/petitioner declined to examine any defence witness. He further submitted, in fact, the accused/petitioner could not able to understand the implication of the question put to him and due to a bona fide mistake stated that he would not adduce any defence evidence. According to Mr. Dutta, if the petitioner is not permitted to examine the defence witnesses, he shall be seriously prejudiced.
(3.) ADMITTEDLY , the trial of the case is over and judgement has already been pronounced, convicting the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is also an admitted position that against the order of conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal being CRA No. 19 of 2009 before the Learned District Judge, Howrah. In such view of the matter, there is no question of considering the sustainability of the order impugned. This criminal revisional application has no merit and, accordingly, stands dismissed. Criminal Section is directed to deliver urgent Photostat certified copy of this Judgement to the parties, if applied for, as early as possible.;