Order : ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J. 1. Since common question of facts and law are involved in all these five petitions, hence with the consent of counsel for the parties, these matters are taken up together for final disposal and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the same respondent-complainant filed similar kind of five criminal complaints against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘the Act of 1881’) wherein at the stage of defence evidence, his evidence was closed. Learned counsel submits that when the case was posted for evidence of the petitioner, he went on a religious pilgrim and he could not appear before the trial court and in that eventuality, his opportunity to examine himself in the witness box has been closed. Learned counsel submits that prior to that, on three different occasions, the petitioner was present in the court but the Presiding Officer was on leave. Hence, on account of said reasons, the evidence of the petitioner could not be recorded on those occasions. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the cross-examination is a statutory right of an accused which has been denied to him by passing the order impugned. Hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 3. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 4. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Natasha Singh Vs. CBI (State), reported in (2013) 5 SCC 741 has held in para 15 and 16 as under:- “15. The scope and object of the provision is to enable the court to determine the truth and to render a just decision after discovering all relevant facts and obtaining proper proof of such facts, to arrive at a just decision of the case. Power must be exercised judiciously and not capriciously or arbitrarily, as any improper or capricious exercise of such power may lead to undesirable results. An application under Section 311 CrPC must not be allowed only to fill up a lacuna in the case of the prosecution, or of the defence, or to the disadvantage of the accused, or to cause serious prejudice to the defence of the accused, or to give an unfair advantage to the opposite party. An application under Section 311 CrPC must not be allowed only to fill up a lacuna in the case of the prosecution, or of the defence, or to the disadvantage of the accused, or to cause serious prejudice to the defence of the accused, or to give an unfair advantage to the opposite party. Further, the additional evidence must not be received as a disguise for retrial, or to change the nature of the case against either of the parties. Such a power must be exercised, provided that the evidence that is likely to be tendered by a witness, is germane to the issue involved. An opportunity of rebuttal however, must be given to the other party. The power conferred under Section 311 CrPC must therefore, be invoked by the court only in order to meet the ends of justice, for strong and valid reasons, and the same must be exercised with great caution and circumspection. The very use of words such as "any Court", "at any stage”, or "or any enquiry, trial or other proceedings", "any person" and "any such person" clearly spells out that the provisions of this section have been expressed in the widest possible terms, and do not limit the discretion of the Court in any way. There is thus no escape if the fresh evidence to be obtained is essential to the just decision of the case. The determinative factor should therefore be, whether the summoning/recalling of the said witness is in fact, essential to the just decision of the case.” 16. Fair trial is the main object of criminal procedure, and it is the duty of the court to ensure that such fairness is not hampered or threatened in any manner. Fair trial entails the interests of the accused, the victim and of the society, and therefore, fair trial includes the grant of fair and proper opportunities to the person concerned, and the same must be ensured as this is a constitutional, as well as a human right…...” 5. Considering the arguments put forward by learned counsel for the petitioner and looking to the fact that a fair trial demands a fair opportunity should be granted to the accused to examine himself as witness. Here in the instant case, an opportunity of putting defence evidence has been declined by the trial court. Considering the arguments put forward by learned counsel for the petitioner and looking to the fact that a fair trial demands a fair opportunity should be granted to the accused to examine himself as witness. Here in the instant case, an opportunity of putting defence evidence has been declined by the trial court. It is true that there was some delay in putting the defence evidence on the part of the petitioner but the same can be compensated by awarding adequate amount of compensation. 6. In view of the above, these instant criminal misc. petitions stand allowed and the impugned orders dated 14.11.2024 stand quashed and set aside. One more opportunity is granted to the petitioner to lead his defence evidence on the next date already fixed before the trial court, subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- in each and every complaint of the complainant. 7. It is made clear that on the next date fixed before the Trial Court, one more opportunity will be granted to the petitioner to lead the defence evidence of the petitioner, on payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- in each and every complaint in advance. 8. It is further made clear that in case, the petitioner fails to pay the cost of Rs.5,000/- in each and every complaint to the complainant and he further fails to lead the defence evidence of himself, no further opportunity would be granted to the petitioner. 9. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 10. The reason for passing this ex parte order without issuing any notice to the complainant is to avoid further delay in disposal of the complaint submitted by the complainant. In case, the complainant feels aggrieved by this ex parte order, he would be at liberty to move application for revival of these petitions.