JUDGMENT 1. - This Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 24.10.2013 passed in Cr. Case No. 22/2012 by which the application for grant of time for argument filed by the petitioner was dismissed. 2. The short facts of the case are that the petitioner is facing trial in Cr. Case No. 22/2012 for the offence under Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act. During the course of trial, the petitioner filed an application to grant time for final arguments but it has been rejected. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that opportunity of hearing should be given to him. His further contention is that if counsel for the accused was not ready to argue the matter it was court's duty to provide Amicus Curiae and hence the impugned order be quashed. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor and perused the impugned order. 5. A bare perusal of the impugned order speaks that earlier one application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner which was rejected against which a revision petition has been filed before the High Court and on 24.10.2013 it was stated by the Advocate of the accused petitioner that time may be granted for argument which was not accepted by the court below. Against this order, this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed. It is an admitted case of the parties that earlier a revision petition is already pending before the court but no stay has been granted on that revision petition, hence it was the bounden duty of the court below to proceed further in the matter but the counsel for the petitioner was not ready to argue the matter, hence after hearing the Public Prosecutor, the case has been fixed for final judgment. The counsel for the petitioner has himself opted not to assist the Court in the matter. 6. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the provisions of Section 303 and 304 (1) Cr.P.C., which reads thus:- "303. Right of person against whom proceedings are instituted to be defended. Any person accused of an offence before a Criminal Court, or against whom proceedings are instituted under this Code, may of right be defended by a pleader of his choice. 304. Right of person against whom proceedings are instituted to be defended. Any person accused of an offence before a Criminal Court, or against whom proceedings are instituted under this Code, may of right be defended by a pleader of his choice. 304. Legal aid to accused at State expense in certain cases:- (1) Where, in a trial before the Court of Session, the accused is not represented by a pleader, and where it appears to the Court that the accused has not sufficient means to engage a pleader, the Court shall assign a pleader for his defence at the expense of the State." 7. A bare reading of the above is suggestive that accused person has a right to defend by a pleader of his choice and admittedly the accused petitioner was represented by the pleader of his choice before the court below and under Section 304 IPC if an accused person is not represented by a pleader then a specific duty has been casted upon the Court but where pleader is appointed by the accused petitioner and he was present in the Court also then it was not desirable by the court below to appoint another counsel. The counsel for the petitioner has himself opted for not to address the Court and hence, there is no infirmity in the impugned order.The petition is wholly misconceived and is liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******