9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 298X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d; and (ii) Order dated 06.12.2021 passed 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 d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... triable by him does not exceed 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 examina ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e petitioner did not appear. 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-exam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that date. 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 peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
