JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 21.04.2014 passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, (CBI Cases), Jodhpur Metropolitan (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Criminal Case No.05/2010, whereby the trial court has closed the opportunity of the petitioner for producing defence evidence. 2. The petitioner along with co-accused is facing trial for commission of offences punishable under Section 420 and 120-B IPC. The trial court has framed the charges against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences on 05.06.2013 and, thereafter, the prosecution evidence was completed on 01.10.2013 and the matter was fixed for recording the statement of the accused persons on 18.10.2013. On that date, the petitioner and the other co-accused persons have submitted an application for exemption and the same was accepted by the court and the matter was fixed for recording the statement of the accused persons on 28.10.2013. 3. On 28.10.2013, though the petitioner was present but other co-accused - Raj Kumar was not present, therefore, his bail bonds were cancelled and he was summoned through arrest warrant and the matter was fixed for 12.11.2013. Meanwhile, the other co-accused - Raj Kumar appeared before the Court and was granted bail. However, on 12.11.2013, the petitioner was absent and was granted exemption from the court and the matter was fixed for 23.11.2013. After 23.11.2013 again the matter was fixed on eight occasions for the purpose of recording the statement of the accused person under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 4. On 05.03.2014, the statement of the petitioner was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and thereafter, the matter was fixed for 11.03.2014. On 11.03.2014, adjournment was sought on behalf of both the accused persons and the matter was fixed on 20.03.2014. On that date, the statements of other co-accused - Raj Kumar were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and time was granted to produce the defence evidence and the matter was fixed for 27.03.2014. 5. On 27.03.2014, the defence evidence was not produced, then the matter was fixed for 05.04.2014. On that date also, no defence evidence was produced and the matter was fixed for 15.04.2014. On that date, last opportunity was granted to the petitioner to produce the defence evidence and the matter was fixed on 21.04.2014. 5. On 27.03.2014, the defence evidence was not produced, then the matter was fixed for 05.04.2014. On that date also, no defence evidence was produced and the matter was fixed for 15.04.2014. On that date, last opportunity was granted to the petitioner to produce the defence evidence and the matter was fixed on 21.04.2014. However, on 21.04.2014, again the defence evidence was not produced then the opportunity of producing the defence evidence was closed by the trial court. 6. From the above facts, it is clear that despite several opportunities, the petitioner has failed to produce any defence evidence and, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the trial court has not committed any illegality in closing the opportunity of the petitioner to produce the defence evidence. 7. Hence, there is no force in this criminal misc. petition and the same is hereby dismissed. 8. Stay petition also stands dismissed. *******