Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2022 (6) TMI 298

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... was allowed. In the instant case, on 29.10.2021, the petitioner did not appear personally. He did not adduce any evidence in his defence and even he did not seek any adjournment. The court, in fact, did not have any reason to adjourn the proceeding at the same stage. The court closed the opportunity of adducing defence evidence by the petitioner and proceeded ahead. It cannot be said that the impugned order is against any provision of law. It cannot be said that the petitioner did not get opportunity to adduce evidence in defence. Opportunity does not mean that it may be unguided. An accused does not have unrestricted rights to adduce evidence as and when he requires. As stated, in the instant case, opportunity to adduce defence evidence .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d in Criminal Revision No. 205 of 2021, Digamber Singh Negi v. Padam Datt, by the court of Incharge District Judge, Dehradun. 2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner as well as the learned State Counsel, and perused the record. 3. It appears that the respondent no. 2 ( the complainant ) filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ( the Act ) against the petitioner, which formed the basis of the case. The complaint was filed on 23.03.2015. In the case, on 14.09.2021, the examination of the petitioner under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded. The petitioner had then stated that he would adduce evidence in his defence. 06.10.2021 was the date fixed for that matter. On 06.10.2 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed his powers under Section 243(2) if, in the interest of justice, he directs to send the document for enabling the same to be compared by a hand-writing expert because even in adopting this course, the purpose is to enable the Magistrate to compare the disputed signature or writing with the admitted writing or signature of the accused and to reach his own conclusion with the assistance of the expert. The appellant is entitled to rebut the case of the respondent and if the document viz. the cheque on which the respondent has relied upon for initiating criminal proceedings against the appellant would furnish good material for rebutting that case, the Magistrate having declined to send the document for the examination and opinion of the hand- .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ppear. He was represented by his counsel, who sought adjournment and exemption from his personal appearance, which was allowed. 10. Adjournment, at any stage, need to be given due consideration. It may not be allowed on mere asking. In the case of Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab, (2015) 3 SCC 220, the Hon'ble Supreme Court deprecated the practice of granting adjournment on the drop of hat. In para 57.1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as hereunder:- 57.1. Adjournments are sought on the drop of a hat by the counsel, even though the witness is present in court, contrary to all principles of holding a trial. That apart, after the examination-in-chief of a witness is over, adjournment is sought for cross-examination and the di .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Even thereafter, again, the petitioner moved another application to get himself examined, which was rejected by the court on 1611.2021 on the ground that the opportunity to adduce defence evidence has already been closed on 29.10.2021. The petitioner would have assigned the reasons for not adducing evidence on 29.10.2021 for consideration of the court below, which the petitioner did not choose. Even it has not been stated before the court as to why the evidence was not adduced on 29.10.2021. Criminal trial cannot be delayed without any reason. 14. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that there is no reason to make any interference and the petition deserves to be dismissed at the admission stage itself. 15. The petition is .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates