veracity or the truthfulness or otherwise of the contents of Annexure-II reply notice as those are all matters to be determined in evidence by the trial court. But the relevant fact of the matter is that the first opportunity that the petitioner had got to respond to the complainant's allegation was when he received the statutory demand notice and at that point of time, he had sent Annexure-II reply notice wherein he has set up a definite case that the last installment coming to Rs.10,000/- was paid on 10.12.2012 by the accused to the complainant in his residence and that the complainant's brother had witnessed the same as he had come to the residence of the complainant to take away his mother to his residence etc. Therefore, it cannot be said that the said version now projected by the petitioner before the trial court in Annexure-III application is an afterthought. True that there occurred some delay on the part of the petitioner in not citing the present defence witness when he had cited his two witnesses, viz, DW1 and DW2. The accused has a precious right to shape up his defence strategy in the best manner suited to him as per the advice that may be rendered by his counsel. Therefore, shutting out defence evidence on the ground that the plea made by the petitioner is an afterthought, is not correct and tenable in the facts and circumstances of this case. In this view of the matter, the impugned Annexure-IV order is set aside and the trial court is directed to permit the petitioner to adduce additional evidence, through above
