Fair trial rights demand a balance between the interests of the accused and timely justice; repeated delays in defence evidence can invoke costs and limits on opportunities.

JUDGMENT

Manoj Kumar Ohri, J. (ORAL)--The present petitions have been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioners assailing the orders dated 30.09.2019 passed by the learned ASJ-02, South-West District, Dwarka Courts, Delhi in CR Nos. 17/2018 and 18/2018, arising out of CC Nos. 4994232/2016 and 4994233/2016 filed under Section 138 read with Sections 141 /142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as `the NI Act'), vide which the revision petitions filed on behalf of the petitioners seeking permission to lead defence evidence were dismissed.

The Sessions Court by passing the impugned orders has upheld the order dated 17.03.2018 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (NI Act)-04, Dwarka Courts, Delhi in the aforesaid criminal complaints, vide which the applications filed by the petitioners under Section 311 Cr.P.C. were dismissed and their right to lead defence evidence closed. The petitioners further seek directions for recalling of CW-1 (AR of the company) for further cross-examination. Since the parties involved are common, both petitions are taken up for hearing together and shall be disposed of by a common order.

2. The brief facts necessary for consideration of the present petitions are that the aforesaid complaints came to be filed by the respondent on 08.11.2013, wherein it was stated that as on 31.08.2013 there was an outstanding debt of Rs. 68,22,515/-payable by the petitioners. In order to settle the accounts, the petitioners issued six cheques to the respondent, aggregating to Rs. 57,00,000/-till 15.01.2013, and further assured to settle the remaining accounts later. However, the cheques, on being presented, got dishonored with the remarks `account closed'. As a result, the aforesaid two complaints came to be filed and notices under Section 251 Cr.P.C. were framed against the petitioners on 13.02.2014. The petitioners are stated to have admitted their liability to the tune of Rs.18,00,000/-in both the complaint cases, however, they failed to honor their commitments.

3. On 17.11.2014, the petitioners placed on record two agreements dated 19.09.2012 and 05.12.2012. The trial proceedings continued and CW-1 was examined and discharged on 05.02.2015. The statements of the petitioners under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded on 01.07.2015, whereafter the matter was posted for recording of defence evidence on 25.07.2015. Despite being granted number of opportunities to lead defence evidence, the petitioners failed to avail of the same. Once the defence evidence was closed, they filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking recall of CW-1 which came to be dismissed vide order dated 27.11.2017. The said order was not challenged by the petitioners before any Court. Another application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. was filed by the petitioners, seeking direction to the complainant to file original agreement dated 05.12.2012. The respondent/complainant did not deny the execution of the said agreement and resultantly the aforesaid application also came to be dismissed on 30.01.2018. While passing the said order, the Trial Court gave last opportunity to the petitioners to lead defence evidence.

4. The petitioners, despite dismissal of their earlier application filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C., preferred another application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking same relief of recall of CW-1 for confronting him with the agreement dated 05.12.2012. The aforesaid application also came to be dismissed by the Trial Court v