V. B. GUPTA, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER has filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. seeking extension of time in conducting defence evidence. ( 2 ) IT is stated that defence evidence commenced from 3rd July, 2007 and till 10th August, 2007, 18 defence witnesses have been examined. Vide order dated 10th August, 2007 passed by this Court, the trial court was directed to conclude the defence evidence by 20th September, 2007 and petitioner has been trying his levels best to conclude his evidence in defence and now only 10 more witnesses, as on date remain to be examined. So, time to conclude the defence evidence be extended appropriately and substantial time be granted for completion of the same and the order curtailing/limiting the right of the petitioner would be against the fundamental rights of the petitioner for a fair trial. ( 3 ) IT has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that prosecution has taken more than five years to conclude its evidence whereas, petitioner's evidence is being recorded since July, 2007 only and now 10 witnesses remains to be examined and the petitioner should be permitted to examine them and no prejudice will be caused to the prosecution and the petitioner who is in custody has made all the efforts to produce the defence witnesses as far as possible on the date fixed by the trial court. Learned counsel cited a decision of this Court in Som Nath Sapra vs. State and Anr. 106 (2003) DLT 139 in which it was held that:-"right to produce evidence in defence by the accused is a valuable right and cannot be curtailed or abridged with the sledge of hammer. " ( 4 ) ON the other hand, it has been argued by learned counsel for the State that on 10th August, 2007 a consent order was passed by this Court and the petitioner was given time till 20th September, 2007 to conclude the defence evidence. It was also ordered that no further date shall be given by the trial court for this purpose. The petitioner and his counsel adopted dilatory tactics after passing of this order till the defence evidence was closed by the trial court on 20th September, 2007 as during this period, petitioner examined only 8 witnesses and on many occasions, adjournments were sought either by the petitioner or by his counsel. The petitioner and his counsel adopted dilatory tactics after passing of this order till the defence evidence was closed by the trial court on 20th September, 2007 as during this period, petitioner examined only 8 witnesses and on many occasions, adjournments were sought either by the petitioner or by his counsel. Thus ample time was given to petitioner to comply with the direction of this Court to conclude the evidence by 20th September, 2007. Now the matter is already listed for final arguments, hence, no ground is made out for extension of time. ( 5 ) ON 10th August, 2007, it was agreed by both the counsel that petitioner be given time till 20th September, 2007 to conclude the defence evidence. As per copies of proceedings of trial court placed on record, only 8 witnessess were examined by the petitioner during 10th August to 20th September, 2007. The learned trial court fixed 14 dates for defence evidence during this period. The record further reveals that on many occasions adjournment was sought, either by the petitioner or his counsel. It never happened during this period that prosecution ever sought any adjournment. ( 6 ) THE trial court had been very reasonable and considerate in acceding to the request of the petitioner and his counsel for adjournments. ( 7 ) SINCE the consent order was passed on 10th August, 2007, the learned trial court had no option but to close the defence evidence, which it did so rightly when petitioner failed to close its evidence. ( 8 ) NOW the petitioner is seeking extension of time for examining 10 more witnesses as mentioned in the list filed along with this petition. However, it may be pertinent to point out that on 19th September, 2007, the defence counsel stated before the trial court that he wants to examine four witnesses only and relevant portion of this order reads as under:- " It is pertinent to mention that the Hon'ble High Court had given time to the defence to conclude defence evidence on 20th September, 2007 vide order dated 10th August, 2007 and it is observed therein that no further date shall be given by the trial court to the accused for defence evidence. Perusal of record shows that since the order of Hon'ble the High Court till date 7 witnesses have been examined in defence and today defence counsel has requested to examine 4 witnesses as referred above. Details of two witnesses, i. e. Jain T. V. Reporter and Star T. V. Reporter are yet to be furnished. " ( 9 ) SO, as per petitioner's own case, he had to examine only 4 witnesses as on 19th September, 2007 and now from where this list of 10 witnesses has come, that has not been explained at all. ( 10 ) IT is well settled that right to produce defence evidence is valuable right and accused should be given fair and reasonable opportunity to produce his defence evidence. However, in spite of ample opportunities granted to the petitioner and in spite of order dated 10th August, 2007 passed by this Court, the petitioner has failed to close his defence evidence. Nevertheless, the fact remains that petitioner still wants to examine four witnesses and the matter is listed before the trial court for final arguments with effect from 6th October, 2007. So, for just decision of the case and the fact that present petitioner may not have the feeling that his right to produce defence evidence has been curtailed either by this Court or by the trial court, further opportunity is granted to the petitioner to produce four witnesses only, namely, Tanu chaudhary, C. O. City Ghaziabad, Jain T. V. reporter and Star T. V. reporter. The trial court shall record statements of these four witnesses on 27th and 28th september, 2007 and it shall be the responsibility of the petitioner to ensure their presence and for that purpose his counsel can obtain dasti summons. In case petitioner fails to produce or examine these witnesses by 28 September, 2007, the defence evidence shall be deemed to be closed. However, examination of these witnesses, shall be subject to the provisions of Sections 233 (3)Cr. P. C. ( 11 ) ACCORDINGLY, the present petition stands disposed of. ( 12 ) DASTI copy of this order be given to counsel for both parties under the signature of the Court Master and one copy be sent to learned trial court forthwith by special messanger.