JUDGMENT 1. - A case under Section 307 I.P.C. is pending for trial against the petitioner in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Kota. The statement of the petitioner was recorded under Section 313 Cr. P C. and it appears that in that statement the applicant stated that he did not want to produce any evidence in defence. Thereafter the petitioner moved an application before the trial court that on 5-2 -81 when statement of the petitioner was recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C. his advocate was not present and the petitioner could not properly under-stand the question asked by the Court, regarding production of defence evidence and under these circumstances the petitioner gave a statement for not producing any evidence in defence. The petitioner thus prays that he may now be permitted to examine Chandu, Jamil and Mannu in his defence. The learned trial court by its impugned order dated 12-2-81 dismissed the aforesaid application on-he ground that it did not come within purview of Section 311 Cr. P.C. and after hearing the arguments, if he would feel necessary then he would pass an order for summoning the aforesaid witnesses. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. The statement of the accused under Section 313 was recorded on 5-2-81 and a week thereafter the petitioner submitted this application for permitting him to lead the defence evidence on the ground that he had given his statement under Section 313 on a misunderstanding as his counsel was not present at that time. Under these circumstances I think it proper in the interest of justice to allow the petitioner to lead the evidence of Chandu, Jamil and Mannu in defence. 3. In the result, this petition is allowed, and it is directed that the accused petitioner be allowed to produce the aforesaid witnesses in his defence.Application Allowed. *******