JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 5.3.2014 passed by the Addition Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nathdwara (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court') whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has been rejected. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on a complaint, filed by the respondent No. 2 against the petitioner, the Trial Court took cognisance under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act against the petitioner. During the trial, the statement of respondent No. 2 has been recorded in support of complaint and the statement of petitioner has also been recorded in defence and he was also cross-examined by the Counsel for the respondent No. 2 on 30.10.2013. After 30.10.2013, the petitioner was granted several opportunities to produce evidence in defence, but the petitioner did not produce any such evidence and ultimately on 5.3.2014, he moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. while stating that during the course of his cross-examination, the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 asked him a question that the cheques in question were handed over to the respondent No. 2 on 12.4.2008 and he has denied the said suggestion, but in order to prove the fact then on 12.4.2008, he was not available in Nathdwara town and he was in Ahemdabad, he wants to produce his evidence and, therefore, he prayed that the Court should allow him to further record his statement as witness. 3. The said application of the petitioner was opposed by the respondent No. 2 on the ground that the fact of handing over of cheque by the petitioner to the respondent No. 2 was very much mentioned in the notice, sent to the petitioner after the cheque in question was not realised on account of stop payment, therefore, it cannot be said that the respondent No. 2 has raised this plea for the first time when the petitioner was cross-examined during the trial. 4. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as well as the material placed on record. 5. 4. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as well as the material placed on record. 5. The Trial Court after hearing both the parties has dismissed the application of the petitioner while observing that during the course of cross-examination of the petitioner, he was suggested that on 12.4.2008 he has handed over the cheques to the complainant and at that time, if the petitioner wants to submit his evidence on this aspect of the matter, he could have done so by re-examining himself on the very same day. The learned Trial Court has also observed that the statement of the petitioner was recorded on 30.10.2013 and thereafter he was granted several opportunities to submit evidence in defence, but the petitioner has not submitted any evidence in defence and now he has moved this application only with intention to delay the trial. 6. It is true that when the statement of the petitioner was recorded on 30.10.2013 and he was suggested that he has handed over the cheques to the respondent No. 2 on 12.4.2008, it was open for him to produce his evidence regarding his non-availability on 12.4.2008 by re-examining himself. From the record, it is also clear that the petitioner was not confronted for the first time with the plea that he has handed over the cheques to the respondent No. 2 on 12.4.2008 because this fact is mentioned in the notice sent by the respondent No. 2 to the petitioner when the cheque in question were not realised. 7. In view of above circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the Trial Court, therefore, this misc. petition is dismissed. The stay petition is also dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******