The necessity of further examination of a witness must be justified for a just decision, and dilatory tactics to delay the trial will not be entertained.

1. IN connection with a prosecution of the petitioner and the opposite party nos. 3 and 4 under Sections 138/141 of the Negotiable INstruments Act the Trial Court closed the defence evidence and fixed a date for hearing of argument. Such order being challenged in a criminal revision, the Sessions Court has also dismissed the same and upheld the order of the Trial Court, hence this criminal revision.

2. HEARD the Learned Counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. Perused the materials on record. It is the case of the complainant the opposite party no. 2 herein that the petitioner and opposite party no. 4 are the partners of opposite party no. 3, a partnership firm, viz., M/s. Flashforward Communication. It is the further case of the complainant that they in discharge of a legally enforceable debt issued a cheque for Rs. 7 lakhs to the complainant. When the said cheque was presented to its banker by the complainant/opposite party for encashment such cheque was returned unpaid due to insufficient fund. However, in spite of receipt of demand notice by the accused persons no payment was made. Accordingly, on August 22, 2007 the opposite party no. 2 herein instituted a case for offences punishable under Sections 138/141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against them. It further appears that alleging delay in disposal of the aforesaid complaint case in violation of the mandate of Section 143 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the complainant, the opposite party no. 2 herein earlier moved C.R.R. No. 2835 of 2009, when this Honble High Court by an order passed on August 10, 2009 directed the Learned Court below to make all endeavours to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible preferably within two months from the date of communication of the order. Thereafter, the defence examined as many as four witnesses in support of its case. Then again on November 18, 2009 after examination of D.W. 4 was over defence moved an application before the Trial Court for further examination of D.W. 2. However, the Learned Magistrate rejected the said application and such order being challenged in a criminal revision, the petitioner lost there.

3. NOW, having regards to the materials on record, I find that the accused persons got sufficient opportunity to examine witnesses in its defence and as many as four defence witnesses were examined and only after examination of D.W. 4 was over, an application was moved for further examination of the D.W. 2. However, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner could not canvass anything before this Court as to why the further examination of D.W. 2 is necessary far less to justify as to why the further examination of D.W. 2 is necessary for just decision of the case. According to the learned advocate of the petitioner that the Trial Court has closed the evidence merely because this Honble Court directed the conclusion of the trial in terms of Section 143 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

4. IT is noteworthy the impugned order, passed sometime in the middle of November 2009 whereby the defence evidence was closed pursuant to the order of this Honble Court, instead of being challenged before this Court, was challenged before a Sessions Court. The criminal revision before the Sessions Court was pending till middle of March 1010, i.e., nearly for about four months and then this criminal revision has been moved in May 2010 nearly after about two months. Be that as it may, in my opinion, the Learned Magistrate very rightly rejected the petitioners prayer for further examination of D.W. 2. I do not find anything from the materials on record or from submissions of the learned advocate of the petitioner that further examination of D.W. 2 is necessary for just decision of the case. On the other hand, I am of the opinion the petitioner has adopted a dilatory tactics to delay the conclusion of the trial. I do not find any merit in this criminal revision and same stands dismissed. The order impugne