Right to lead defense evidence is essential for a fair trial, and courts must ensure opportunities are provided even in cases of prior delays.

JUDGMENT

Swarana Kanta Sharma, J. (Oral)--The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C.") has been filed by the petitioners for setting aside the order dated 06.12.2019 ("impugned order") passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in CC No. 525875/2016 titled as "Deepanshu Goel v. Babu & Co & Ors." whereby the right of the petitioners/accused persons to lead defence evidence was closed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ("N.I. Act, 1881") was filed by the respondent against the petitioners on the ground that a cheque bearing no. 439142 dated 15.02.2014 for Rs.68,85,974/- issued by the petitioners to the respondent was dishonored and returned unpaid due to insufficient funds. During the pendency of the complaint case, petitioners were provided various opportunities to lead their evidence but despite the same, petitioners failed to do so. An application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was moved on behalf of the petitioners, which was allowed in part by the learned Trial Court on 28.09.2019, and petitioners were allowed to lead the defence evidence. However, the learned Trial Court closed the said right of petitioners by virtue of order dated 06.12.2019.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 06.12.2019, petitioner could not appear before the learned Trial Court as he was not well, however, his son had appeared in the same court in CC No. 530357/2019 in which the son of the petitioner was an accused. It is further submitted that son of the petitioner was ready with the evidence by way of an affidavit of the petitioner, but the learned Trial Court refused to accept the same. It is stated that petitioners may be given one more opportunity to lead the evidence, assuring that petitioners will not take any adjournment on the next date of hearing before the learned Trial Court.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent states that even before the learned Trial Court, despite 30 opportunities being granted to the petitioners, the case did not move forward as petitioners have been very irregular in appearing before learned Trial Court as well as due to the non-availability of their counsel. It is stated that the passing of impugned order was a result of irregularity in appearing before the learned Trial Court due to which the right of the petitioners to lead defence evidence was closed vide order dated 06.12.2019.

5. I have heard the arguments on behalf of both the parties and have gone through the material on record.

6. A perusal of the order sheets of learned Trial Court placed on record, shows that the petitioners had earlier filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for further cross-examination of the complainant as well as an application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. seeking direction to complainant to produce the documents as mentioned in application. Both the applications were dismissed by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 03.08.2019. Subsequently, statements of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and an application was moved on behalf of petitioners/accused persons to lead defence evidence and examine defence witnesses. The same was allowed vide order dated 28.09.2019, which is reproduced hereinunder:

"...Matter is listed today for order on the application u/s 311 Cr.P.C moved on behalf of accused.

As per the list of witnesses filed by the accused there are 13 witnesses to be examined in defence evid