ORDER : The sole accused in S.C.No.241 of 2019 pending before the learned Special Judge for speedy trial of offences under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Vijayawada filed this Criminal Revision Case under Sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) alleging that an opportunity be given to the revision petitioner/accused to lead evidence in defence during the trial of S.C.No.241 of 2019. 2. Sri Bhanu Prasad Chukkapalli, the learned counsel for revision petitioner submitted arguments. 3. Respondent is the State and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted arguments. 4. Perused the record. 5. Revision petitioner is stated to be a driver and aged about 30 years. The allegations are that he had forcible sex with a girl aged around 15 years and that was a repeated act on his part and all this occurred during the year 2015. The girl became pregnant. The offence was investigated into and charge sheet was laid. The competent Court framed necessary charges and recorded the evidence on behalf of the prosecution. Thereafter on 27.10.2013 the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied the truth of the evidence and informed the Court that he would tender evidence in defence. On the appointed dates fixed for his evidence he did not lead his evidence and sought time and from time to time, the time was granted by the learned trial Court. Finally, on 15.02.2024, as he was not tendering his defence evidence, the learned trial Court closed the defence evidence and posted the matter to 08.04.2024 for hearing arguments. On 08.04.2024 he filed Crl.M.P.Nos.480 and 481 of 2024 seeking to reopen the evidence of defence and permit him to examine the witnesses. On 17.05.2024 the learned trial Court, after hearing both sides, allowed those applications and permitted the accused to adduce evidence in defence and directed him to produce the evidence on 27.05.2024. It further recorded that if on that day the accused failed to adduce evidence, the petitions would stand dismissed. 6. It is undisputed that on 27.05.2024 the accused did not produce his evidence and therefore, the learned trial Court closed the evidence and listed the matter for hearing arguments on both sides. It is then the accused filed the present criminal revision case. 7. 6. It is undisputed that on 27.05.2024 the accused did not produce his evidence and therefore, the learned trial Court closed the evidence and listed the matter for hearing arguments on both sides. It is then the accused filed the present criminal revision case. 7. The grounds urged in the revision as well as the submissions made by the learned counsel on behalf of the revision petitioner are that because of the hot summer the revision petitioner could not produce evidence in defence on the appointed day. His further submission is that the trial Court granted several adjournments to the prosecution to produce its evidence, but enough time was not granted to the defence to produce evidence in defence. It is for these reasons the learned counsel urges this Court to permit the petitioner/accused to adduce evidence in defence. 8. As against it, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the submissions of revision petitioner are incorrect and it is not a case where opportunity to produce defence evidence was not granted by the trial Court and in fact the learned trial Court in accordance with law granted opportunity since 27.10.2023 and despite several adjournments, the accused instead of producing evidence in defence was simply dragging on the matter. 9. Having considered the rival submissions, it is to state here that the arguments advanced on behalf of the revision petitioner do not comport well and they are against the mandate in Section 309 Cr.P.C. Fair trial and expeditious trial are the two fundamentals that a Criminal Court trying a case require to maintain and they are for the benefit of the accused. The minutes of the trial Court placed before this Court are verified and this Court is duly satisfied that learned trial Court granted several adjournments for the accused to adduce evidence. It seems that the accused instead of expeditiously participating in trial has been dodging the matter. The argument about the number of adjournments granted to prosecution and the number of adjournments that are to be granted to defence is misplaced and has no basis at law. This Court also notices that on 02.03.2022 after hearing both sides, the learned trial Court drew up a schedule for examining prosecution witnesses and listed the matter on 19.04.2022. On 19.04.2022 the scheduled witnesses number in three were present. This Court also notices that on 02.03.2022 after hearing both sides, the learned trial Court drew up a schedule for examining prosecution witnesses and listed the matter on 19.04.2022. On 19.04.2022 the scheduled witnesses number in three were present. The learned counsel appearing for defence did not appear and his junior appeared and sought time saying that the senior was indisposed. In those circumstances, the learned trial Court adjourned the matter. This fact is indicated here only to show that the revision petitioner/accused has been playing all the tricks to retard the trial process. Be that as it may. Since the defence intends to adduce its evidence which evidence may likely to help the trial judge to assess the facts in proper perspective, this Court is inclined to grant an additional opportunity to the revision petitioner/accused by prescribing certain conditions. 10. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed in the following terms: 1. Revision petitioner/accused shall pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) as costs to the Mandal Legal Services Committee, Vijayawada on or before 12.08.2024. 2. On making such deposit, the learned trial Court shall grant five days time from 19.08.2024 to 23.08.2024 to the accused to produce the evidence in defence. 3. The defence shall complete all its evidence not later than 23.08.2024. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.