The right to lead defence evidence is fundamental, but repeated failures to present evidence can justify the closure of that right to ensure timely justice.

JUDGMENT :

Bipin Chander Negi, J.

The present criminal revision petition has been preferred against order dated 21.12.2024, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dalhousie, District Kangra, in Case NIA Act No.42 of 2023, appended along with present petition as Annexure P-1, whereby the defence of the present petitioner/accused has been closed.

2. Heard counsel for the petitioner, perused the record appended along with present petition and the impugned order.

3. From a perusal of the order sheets appended along with the present petition, it is evident that after conclusion of the evidence of the complainant, the statement of the petitioner/accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on 09.08.2024. In the statement so made by the petitioner/accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner/accused had denied the allegations leveled against him and had claimed to lead defence evidence. Hence, on 09.08.2024, the petitioner/accused was directed to take steps within a week for leading evidence. The matter thereafter was posted for 01.10.2024.

4. On 01.10.2024, the petitioner/accused was not present. On his behalf, an application for exemption was filed. The same was considered and allowed. The counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/accused sought more time for leading defence evidence. The same was allowed in the interest of justice and the matter was now posted for 11.11.2024. Since in terms of order dated 09.08.2024, no steps had been taken by the petitioner/accused for leading defence evidence, therefore, on 01.10.2024, when more time was sought for leading defence evidence, the same was granted on self responsibility and the matter was posted for 11.11.2024.

5. On 11.11.2024, yet again, the petitioner/accused was not present. An application for exemption was filed on his behalf. The same was considered and allowed. Here again, the counsel for the petitioner/accused sought more time for leading defence evidence on self responsibility. Time, as prayed, was allowed. The opportunity granted was by way of an exceptional last opportunity and the petitioner/accused was to produce the defence evidence on his own responsibility, on 21.12.2024.

6. Yet again, on 21.12.2024 the petitioner/accused was not present. He filed an application for exemption, which was considered and allowed. Once again, despite having availed an exceptional last opportunity on the previous date, i.e., 11.11.2024, on 21.12.2024, no defence evidence was present. The Court, in the facts and attending circumstances of the case, closed the right of the petitioner/accused to lead defence evidence.

7. Repeated adjournments by the counsels in mechanical and routine manner affects timely dispensation of justice. As a consequence whereof, trust and confidence of the litigant in the justice delivery system is shaken. In order to create an efficient justice dispensation system and maintain faith in rule of law, Courts are expected to be diligent and take timely action. There is a need to change the work culture and to get out of adjournment culture, which has to a great extent shattered the confidence and trust of litigants in the justice delivery system.

8. Granting of repeated adjournments in routine manner and how it affects the justice delivery system came to be considered before the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ishwarlal Mali Rathod vs. Gopal and Others, 2021 (12) SCC 612, wherein, it has been held as under:-

“9. Today the judiciary and the justice delivery system is facing acute problem of delay which ultimately affects the right of the litigant to access to justice and the speedy trial. Arrears are mounting because of such delay and dilatory tactics and asking repeated adjournments by the advocates and mechanically and in routine manner granted by the courts. It cannot be disputed that due to delay in access to justice and not getting the timely justice it may shaken the trust and confidence of the litigants in