JUDGMENT 1. - The learned Public Prosecutor is directed to accept notice on behalf of the State. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 23.03.2013, passed by the Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Jaipur, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for calling Mr. Daulat as a witness on behalf of the defence. 3. In brief the facts of the case are that the petitioner is facing trial in Criminal Case No. 14/2009 for the offence under Section 8/20 of the NDPS Act. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the matter was fixed for defence evidence. Two witnesses were examined in defence; the case was fixed for final arguments. The petitioner came to know that during the course of examination of Rajesh Kumar (PW5), he claimed that Daulat, the chowkidar (the guard), was present when the contraband drug was allegedly recovered. Since, Daulat was intentionally withheld by the prosecution as a witness, and since the petitioner claimed that she was not present in the Dharamshala, and nothing was recovered from her possession, she filed an application before the Court for calling Daulat as a defence witness. But by order dated 23.03.2013, the learned Judge dismissed the petitioner's application. Hence, this petition before this Court. 4. Mr. Anil Upman, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that the accused-petitioner has a right of fair trial. Since she is pitted against the State, ample opportunities should be given to her to produce her witness so as to defend her reputation of being an innocent person. 5. Secondly, the learned Judge has not given any cogent reasons for denying the petitioner a right to examine Daulat as a defence witness, except to say that various opportunities were given for final arguments. Even if such opportunities were given, a right of defense cannot be denied lightly to an accused person. Since Daulat is said to be present at the time of recovery, he can certainly shed light on the controversy with regard to the recovery of illicit drugs. 6. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has strenuously contended that six opportunities were given to the defence to finally argue the case. The defence had already examined two witnesses on their behalf. Therefore, a request to examine Daulat as a third defence witness is merely a clever ploy to prolong the trial. 6. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has strenuously contended that six opportunities were given to the defence to finally argue the case. The defence had already examined two witnesses on their behalf. Therefore, a request to examine Daulat as a third defence witness is merely a clever ploy to prolong the trial. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. 8. Undoubtedly, the accused has a right of fair trial- a right that emanates from Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Since she is pitted against colossal power of the State, ample opportunities should be given to the accused to defend his position. According to Rajesh Kumar(PW5), Daulat was present at the relevant time as he was the 'Chowkidar' of the Dharamshala, wherein the contraband drugs were recovered. Even if Rajesh Kumar has been declared as a hostile witness, this part of his testimony that Daulat was present at the relevant time, cannot be doubted at this juncture. Thereafter, Daulat would be a relevant witness as he can shed light on the alleged recovery. Thus, he is a material witness to the trial. 9. A bare perusal of the order dated 23.03.2013, clearly reveals that the learned Judge has not given any cogent reason for dismissing the application filed by the petitioner. 10. Therefore, this Court quashes and set-asides the order dated 23.03.2013, and directs the learned Judge to grant an opportunity to the petitioner to examine Daulat as a defence witness. However, merely because this Court is granting opportunity to examine Daulat as a defence witness, would not and cannot be taken as a mere excuse by the petitioner to prolong the trial. As the trial has been hanging fire ever since 2009, the petitioner is directed to co-operate with the conclusion of the trial. 11. With these observations, this petition is hereby allowed. The stay application stands disposed of.Petition allowed. *******