JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. These petitions stand directed against the impugned orders recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Kasauli, on applications moved there before, by accused Udham Singh under the provisions of Section 315 Cr.P.C, provisions whereof stands recorded hereinafter: “315. Accused person to be competent witness. (1) Any person accused of an offence before a Criminal Court shall be a competent witness for the defence and may give evidence on oath in disproof of the charges made against him or any person charged together with him at the same trial: Provided that – (a) he shall not be called as a witness except on his own request in writing; (b) his failure to give evidence shall not be made the subject of any comment by any of the parties or the Court or give rise to any presumption against himself or any person charged together with him at the same trial. (2) Any person against whom proceedings are instituted in any Criminal Court under section 98, or section 107, or section 108, or section 109, or section 110, or under Chapter IX or under Part B, Part C or Part D of Chapter X, may offer himself as a witness in such proceedings: Provided that in proceedings under section 108, section 109 or section 110, the failure of such person to give evidence shall not be made the subject or any comment by any of the parties or the Court or give rise to any presumption against him or any other person proceeded against together with him at the same inquiry.” A perusal of the record unveils qua the accused/petitioners herein, thrice earlier standing afforded opportunities by this Court while its allowing the revision petitions preferred here before by the petitioners/accused whereby they assailed the orders pronounced by the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned whereby the latter had barred the accused/petitioners herein to after conclusion of proceedings drawn under Section 313 Cr.P.C., adduce defence evidence there before. The orders pronounced thrice earlier by this Court stand submitted by the counsel for the petitioners to stand complied with, comprised in the accused/petitioners examining in their defence, the witnesses enumerated in the apposite list of defence witnesses, as stood furnished before the learned trial Magistrate concerned. The orders pronounced thrice earlier by this Court stand submitted by the counsel for the petitioners to stand complied with, comprised in the accused/petitioners examining in their defence, the witnesses enumerated in the apposite list of defence witnesses, as stood furnished before the learned trial Magistrate concerned. However, subsequent thereto, the petitioner-accused Udham Singh had proceeded to institute an application under Section 315 Cr.P.C. before the learned trial Magistrate whereby he sought to examine himself as a witness. 2. The statutory mandate of Section 315 Cr.P.C. foists an indefeasible right in an accused, on his making a request in writing before the trial Court concerned to adduce his evidence by testifying there before on oath in disproof of the charges made against him also makes a graphic communication therein qua his also being a competent witness for propagating his defence. The aforesaid statutory right vested in an accused under Section 315 Cr.P.C., is dehors the right vested in him, to, on conclusion of proceedings drawn under Section 313 Cr.P.C., examine persons whose names occur in the apposite list furnished before the learned trial Magistrate, as witnesses in his defence. Since the defence witnesses whose names stand reflected in the list of witnesses, to, on conclusion of the proceedings drawn under Section 313 Cr.P.C. for theirs being examined in his defence, stand examined there before as defence witnesses also when the mandate of this Court pronounced in criminal revision petitions instituted thrice before this Court by the accused/petitioner whereby the latter had impugned the pronouncements recorded by the learned trial Magistrate wherein his defence evidence stood closed whereupon this Court had, while setting aside the aforesaid dis-affirmative pronouncements recorded upon the accused/petitioner had permitted him to adduce defence evidence before the learned trial Magistrate, when apparently stands meted compliance also when in the renditions pronounced by this Court in Cr. Revision Petition No. 172 of 2015, in Cr.Revision Petition No. 334 of 2015 and in Criminal Revision No. 461 of 2016, this Court did not explicitly bar the accused from availing the statutory right vested in him under Section 315 Cr.P.C. Consequently, when the indefeasible statutory right vested in an accused under Section 315 Cr.P.C. cannot obviously be barred from its standing availed by the accused/petitioner, corollary whereof, is qua the impugned order recorded by the learned trial Magistrate barring the accused to, on his application preferred there before under Section 315 Cr.P.C., testify on oath there before in disproof of the charges, conspicuously when he thereunder statutorily holds the pedestal of a competent witness also when holds a statutory right to testify in disproof of the charges, hence suffers from a taint of material illegality besides a gross impropriety. In aftermath the impugned orders is quashed and set aside. The petitioner Udham Singh is directed to appear before the learned trial Magistrate for his testifying on oath there before on 27th February, 2017. It is clarified that no further opportunity shall be asked for nor any further opportunity for the purpose aforesaid shall be granted to the petitioner. The learned trial Court is directed to record a verdict upon the complaints pending before the learned trial Court within three months thereafter.