Back
DINESH MEHTA
Istikhar Khan – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
ORDER :
1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 20.12.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 4, Jodhpur Metro (hereinafter referred to as 'the revisional court'), whereby the order dated 22.06.2022 passed by the learned Special Metropolitan Magistrate (Negotiable Instruments Act Cases) No. 3, Jodhpur Metro (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') has been affirmed.
2. The facts relevant for the present purpose are that the petitioner is an accused in a complaint filed by the respondent no. 2 under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The petitioner's right to cross-examine was closed by the trial court vide its order dated 22.06.2022, where-against the petitioner preferred a revision petition, which too has been rejected by the revisional court vide its order dated 20.12.2022.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that one last opportunity be allowed to the petitioner to cross-examine the complainant, maybe at a cost.
4. In support of such prayer, learned counsel cited orders dated 03.02.2023, 04.04.2023 and 10.04.2023 passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed in the criminal petitions (S.
The court upheld the trial court's decision to close the petitioner's right to cross-examine due to repeated adjournments, emphasizing the need for expeditious proceedings under the Negotiable Instru....
The right to cross-examine can be forfeited through negligence, and courts may reject applications to recall such rights if the accused fails to act timely.
Non-compliance with court directions and subsequent attempts at procrastination can lead to the forfeiture of legal rights and influence court decisions.
The accused's repeated absences and conduct justified the trial Court's decision to close the right to cross-examine the complainant.
The court held that under Section 145 of the NI Act, the accused must be allowed to cross-examine the complainant before recording their plea of defence, ensuring the fairness of the trial process.
The court upheld the dismissal of a petition for failing to cross-examine the complainant, emphasizing the importance of compliance with court orders and procedural timelines.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
