JUDGMENT Dalal, J. - I see no reason to interfere by way of revision. The applicant has been convicted of an offence u/s 457 I.P.C. by the trial court On appeal to the Sessions Judge he directed the trial court to give the applicant an opportunity of cross-examining the prosecution witnesses. At that time he gave very satisfactory reasons why the applicant should not be permitted to produce evidence for his defence. When questioned by the trial court previous to the appeal to the Sessions Judge the applicant specifically stated that he had no witnesses for the defence. In the circumstances the Sessions Judge was correct in thinking that if witnesses for the defence were produced they would be tutored witnesses. My attention was drawn to the last sentence of Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is laid down there that after cross-examination and re-examination of the prosecution witnesses, if any, the accused shall be called upon to enter upon his defence and produce evidence. It must be remembered, however, that in this case the cross-examination took place under directions of the Sessions Judge and the applicant had previously declared that he had no witnesses for the defence. Under the circumstances I cannot hold that after the cross-examination the accused had a right to produce his defence. Obviously a technical plea is taken in hopes of some result profitable to the applicant flowing from it. When the applicant declared that he had no evidence for the defence it cannot be believed that upon cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses some evidence may be forthcoming. I dismiss this application.