ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 23.7.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Bokaro, in S.T. No.452 of 2010, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C., for examining the defence witness has been rejected by the Court below. 3. The impugned order shows that the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., on 5.7.2013, on which date the junior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the defence did not want to adduce any evidence, upon which, the defence evidence was closed and the case was fixed for arguments on 11.7.2013. It appears that the case was argued in part and was fixed for further arguments on 19.7.2013, when the petition was filed under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C., for examining the one witness by the defence. The Court below rejected the application filed by the petitioner stating that it was on the prayer of the petitioner that the defence evidence was closed and even in the statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., the petitioner had not stated that he wanted to adduce any evidence, and accordingly, the application filed by the petitioner was rejected by the Court below. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is facing the trial for the offence under Section 376 of the I.P.C., on the allegation that he sexually exploited the informant on the false pretext of marrying her. The informant is the co-villager of the petitioner and the petitioner only wanted to adduce the evidence to show that she knew the fact from before that the petitioner was already married. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that an opportunity is required to be given to the petitioner for adducing the evidence for just decision in the case. It is further submitted that the trial has not yet concluded and is still pending in the Trial Court below. Learned counsel undertakes that the petitioner shall take only one date for examining the witness and he shall not take any further adjournment for examining the witness. 5. It is further submitted that the trial has not yet concluded and is still pending in the Trial Court below. Learned counsel undertakes that the petitioner shall take only one date for examining the witness and he shall not take any further adjournment for examining the witness. 5. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand has opposed the prayer and has submitted that it was on the prayer of the petitioner that the defence evidence was closed after giving him proper opportunity for adducing the evidence. It is submitted that the petitioner is now only trying to linger the trial. Learned counsel for the State accordingly, opposed the prayer. 6. After having heard learned counsels for both the parties and upon going through the record, I find that the prosecution evidence was closed very recently in the case, i.e., on 5.7.2013, and that too, without fixing the case specially for the defence evidence. I think it appropriate to give one chance to the petitioner to adduce the defence evidence. Even otherwise, taking into consideration the nature of the allegation, for which the petitioner is facing the trial, it appears to be necessary for just decision in the case, to give a chance to the petitioner to adduce his defence evidence, provided that the trial has not yet concluded and is still pending in the Trial Court below. 7. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 23.7.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Bokaro, in S.T. No.452 of 2010, is hereby, set-aside and the Court below is directed to give one opportunity to the petitioner for adducing the defence evidence. It is made clear that no further opportunity shall be given to the accused petitioner for adducing the evidence and after recording the defence evidence, the trial shall be concluded expeditiously. It is made clear that if the trial has already concluded, this order shall not be operative. 8. With these directions, this application is allowed. Let this order be communicated to the Court concerned through FAX at the cost of the petitioner.