JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and.perused the orders impugned. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the accused petitioners have a valid defence and therefore, considering the defence, the accused petitioners deserve to be discharged for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act' hereinafter). 3. From the perusal of the order passed by the.Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gulabpura, Bhilwara (for.short 'the trial court' hereinafter) dated 18.3.2005 it appears.that on a complaint filed by respondent complainant under...Section 138 of the Act, the trial court took the cognizance of the.offence and issued the process. On appearance of the accused.before the trial court, the accused moved an application under.Section 245 (2) and 259 Criminal Procedure Code seeking to discharge him on the.ground of certain defences agitated therein. The trial court prima-facie came to the conclusion that there is ground to.proceed against the accused petitioners for the offence under Section 138 of the Act and therefore, did not find any ground to.discharge the accused petitioners. The accused petitioners filed a.revision petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judges,.Gulabpura (for short 'the revisional court' hereinafter). The.revisional court did not find any error in the order of the trial.court and held that at the time of cognizance and framing of.charge/ reading of substance of charge, the only material filed.by the police after investigation or the material placed on record.by the complainant in the complaint case is to be seen and the defences if any available to the accused cannot be considered at.that stage. 4. In State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi, JT 2004.(10) SC 303, a Three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.held that at the time of framing the charge or taking cognizance,.the accused has no right to produce any material. The Apex.Court further observed that the only right the accused has at.that stage is of being heard and nothing beyond it. The Apex.Court further held as under:- "At the stage of framing the charge roving and.fishing inquiry is impermissible. It is wellsettled.that at the stage of framing of charge,.the defence of the accused cannot be put.forth. It only means hearing the submissions.of the accused on the record of the case as.filed by the prosecution and nothing more. The Apex.Court further held as under:- "At the stage of framing the charge roving and.fishing inquiry is impermissible. It is wellsettled.that at the stage of framing of charge,.the defence of the accused cannot be put.forth. It only means hearing the submissions.of the accused on the record of the case as.filed by the prosecution and nothing more. The.expression 'hearing the submissions of the accused' cannot mean opportunity to file material to be granted to the accused and thereby changing the settled law. At the stage of framing of charge, hearing the submissions.of the accused has to be confined to the.material produced by the police." 5. Keeping in view the decision of Hon'ble Supreme.Court in State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi (supra), in my.view, both the courts below were justified in passing the orders.impugned. I do not find any error in the orders impugned.warranting interference by invoking inherent jurisdiction of this.Court under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code The criminal misc. petition is.therefore, dismissed. Stay petition also stands dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******