JUDGMENT : Mr. Pankaj Bhandari, J. 1. Counsel for the petitioner has moved this miscellaneous petition aggrieved by orders dated 12.01.2017 & 22.11.2016 vide which the application filed by the petitioner under Section 315 Cr. P.C. was rejected with cost. 2. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that petitioner’s request for permitting him to lead evidence in defence has been rejected by the Court and the order has been upheld by the Revisional Court without any basis. The petitioner has a right to lead evidence in defence and unless he is permitted to lead evidence in defence, he would not be able to discharge the burden which is caste upon him under the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is further contended that the petitioner has filed an FIR against the complainant for misusing the cheque, the documents pertaining to the same are also relevant. 3. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on “T. Nagappa v. Y.R. Muralidhar” 2008 SCC, Page 457, wherein, the Apex Court has held that the accused has a right to fair trial. He has a right to defend himself as a part of his human as also fundamental right as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the right to defend himself and for that purpose adduce evidence is recognised by the Parliament in terms of Section 243(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. I have considered the contentions of the petitioner, the factual matrix of the case are that a complainant for dishonor of cheque was filed before the Trial Court in 2013, the complainant examined himself as a witness and his evidence was closed on 06.02.2016. Petitioner-accused was examined under Section 313 Cr. P.C on 11.02.2016 thereafter, the matter remained pending for defence evidence after affording ample opportunities to the petitioner to produce his defence evidence, the Court closed the defence evidence on 24.10.2016. 5. Petitioner thereafter, moved an application for permitting him to lead evidence in defence under Section 315 of Cr. P.C. on 22.02.2016 which was rejected by the Court on the same date. The petitioner thereafter filed criminal revision which was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge Women Atrocities Cases, No. 1, Jaipur, Metropolitan, Jaipur vide order dated 12.01.2017. 6. 5. Petitioner thereafter, moved an application for permitting him to lead evidence in defence under Section 315 of Cr. P.C. on 22.02.2016 which was rejected by the Court on the same date. The petitioner thereafter filed criminal revision which was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge Women Atrocities Cases, No. 1, Jaipur, Metropolitan, Jaipur vide order dated 12.01.2017. 6. The petitioner was examined under Section 313 on 10.02.2016 and thereafter, he was given ample opportunity to lead his defence evidence and ultimately the Court noted in the order sheet that if the defence evidence is not produced on the next date the defence evidence will be closed thereafter on 24.10.2016 when defence evidence was not produced the defence evidence was closed. It is pertinent to note that on 24.10.2016 when the defence evidence was closed, the petitioner accused was present in Court and there was no reason for not getting himself examined as witness on that date. 7. Consequently, the Court was within its right in closing the defence evidence the petitioner thereafter, moved an application under Section 315 which was also rejected on the ground that the accused has taken 10 opportunities for leading defence evidence and he has moved the application at the stage of final arguments. Revision petition filed against the said order was also rejected in 8. In “T. Nagappa v. Y.R. Muralidhar” (supra) the Court has held that ordinarily accused should be allowed to produce his defence evidence but accused should not be allowed to unnecessarily protract the trial. In the present case in hand the petitioner accused wants to examine himself as a defence witness which he could have very well done when the matter was listed for defence evidence there was no reason for taking 10 adjournments for the same. 9. It is clear that the accused is unnecessarily protracting the trial and therefore the judgment relied upon by the accused-petitioner have no applicability to the facts of the case. Even otherwise, there being a Bar under Section 397 (3) on filing of second revision by the same person. This Court is not inclined to invoke the inherent jurisdiction. 10. The present miscellaneous petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Stay application also stands disposed of.