JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner has filed this criminal misc. petition, while challenging the orders passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Metropolitan Magistrate (CBI Cases), Jodhpur Metropolitan (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter) on 26.07.2013, 26.09.2013 and 18.10.2013, whereby the learned trial court has directed for summoning the defence witnesses and passed the order for closing the defence evidence. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on 26.07.2013, the petitioner moved an application for summoning nine persons as defence witnesses, however, the learned trial court vide order dated 26.07.2013, has ordered for summoning only four persons, out of eight persons. It is contended that the learned trial court has not given any reason for not summoning four more persons viz. Anupam Srivastava, Rakesh Sharma, Shiv Lal and Trilok Chand Jain as defence witnesses. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that summons upon defence witnesses viz. Mohan Lal, Beeram Singh, Shiv Lal and Col. C.K. Sharma have not been served and thereafter, the learned trial court has illegally passed the order dated 26.07.2013 and has given directions to the petitioner to produce the said witnesses on his own. It is contended that when the petitioner has failed to produce those witnesses on his own, the learned trial court vide order dated 18.10.2013, has closed the defence evidence of the petitioner and fixed the matter for final hearing on 28.10.2013. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued that by passing the impugned orders, the learned trial court has curtailed the right of the petitioner to defend his case and, therefore, the said orders are liable to be quashed and set aside. It is also argued that once the trial court has issued summons to a person for giving evidence in defence, then the evidence of said witness cannot be closed without ascertaining his presence before the court. The learned counsel for the petitioner has, therefore, prayed that this criminal misc. petition may kindly be allowed and the relief prayed for in this petition may kindly be granted. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has, therefore, prayed that this criminal misc. petition may kindly be allowed and the relief prayed for in this petition may kindly be granted. 3. Per contra, the learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI has argued that when the trial court has passed the order dated 26.07.2013 for summoning four witnesses, out of eight witnesses suggested by the petitioner, the petitioner had never raised any objection before the trial court and, therefore, it is not open for the petitioner to raise such objection by way of this petition at such a belated stage. It is also contended by the learned Special Public Prosecutor that on 26.09.2013 when the trial court had directed the petitioner to produce the defence witnesses on his own, then also the petitioner had never raised any objection and agreed that on the next date of hearing, he will produce the defence witnesses, however, when the petitioner had failed to produce the defence witnesses on the next date, the learned trial court has rightly closed the opportunity of producing the defence evidence and there is no illegality in the orders passed by the trial court. It is also contended by the learned Special Public Prosecutor that though the impugned orders were passed about 3 to 6 months back but the petitioner has filed this petition only in December, 2013 with an intention to delay the final decision in the trial pending against him. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the impugned order. 5. It is not in dispute that on 26.07.2013, when the trial court ordered for summoning the four persons as defence witnesses, out of eight persons suggested by the petitioner, the petitioner had never raised any objection. On 26.09.2013, when the trial court had directed the petitioner to produce defence witnesses on his own, then also, the petitioner had never raised any objection, though the trial court has specifically observed that if the defence witnesses would not come on the next date, it would be presumed that the defence evidence will be closed. The order dated 26.09.2013 has never been challenged by the petitioner. On 18.10.2013, when the defence evidence was closed on account of non-appearance of the defence witnesses, the petitioner has not challenged the same. The order dated 26.09.2013 has never been challenged by the petitioner. On 18.10.2013, when the defence evidence was closed on account of non-appearance of the defence witnesses, the petitioner has not challenged the same. From the order-sheets of the trial court produced by the petitioner, it appears that the matter was thereafter listed on 28.10.2013, 11.11.2013, 12.11.2013, 13.11.2013 and 28.11.2013 and the petitioner and other accused-persons sought adjournment for final hearing of the case and ultimately on behalf of the co-accused persons viz. Bhagwan Dass and Shambhu Singh, arguments have been concluded on 28.11.2013. The matter was fixed for submission of final arguments on the part of the petitioner on 03.12.2013. It is informed by the learned counsel for the parties that still the matter is pending for final arguments on behalf of the petitioner. 6. The learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the CBI has submitted that the final arguments on behalf of the petitioner have not been advanced before the trial court till date and the petitioner is trying to prolong the case. 7. In view of the above noted facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the action of the petitioner of challenging the impugned orders is nothing but an attempt to prolong the trial of the case. When the petitioner has not objected about the impugned orders at any point of time and has sought time from the trial court on several occasions to advance the final arguments, and when the trial court has insisted upon the petitioner not to take adjournment, he has filed this criminal misc. petition on frivolous grounds. 8. In view of the above noted facts, this Court is of the opinion that no relief can be granted to the petitioner while exercising inherent powers under section 482 CrPC.Hence, this criminal misc. petition is bereft of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed.Stay petition also stands dismissed.Petition dismissed . *******