Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Rajeev Kumar Hudden – Appellant
Versus
Amar Chand Bisht – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts of ni act complaint and defence evidence closure after adjournments. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioner claims prejudice from insufficient opportunities for defence. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. bnss section 346 limits adjournments to two; three already exceeded. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. fair trial does not permit endless adjournments citing case law. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. courts must curb dilatory tactics for speedy justice delivery. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 6. no grounds for revisional jurisdiction; petition dismissed. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
JUDGMENT :
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
The petitioner has filed the present petition to set aside the order dated 7.10.2025, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ani, District Kullu, H.P. (learned Trial Court), vide which his defence was closed by the order of the Court. (The parties shall hereinafter be referred in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)
2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the complainant filed a complaint before the learned Trial Court for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The matter was li
Trial courts justified in closing defence evidence after adjournments exceeding statutory limit of two under BNSS Section 346; fair trial does not permit endless adjournments defeating speedy justice....
The court condemns the misuse of adjournments and emphasizes the importance of timely justice delivery. It calls for a change in work culture to discourage unnecessary adjournments and maintain the r....
The main legal point established is the strict adherence to Section 309 of Cr.P.C., requiring expeditious trials and continuous examination of witnesses, with adjournments only granted for special re....
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.
The right to cross-examine witnesses must be exercised promptly, and adjournments should only be granted for compelling reasons to ensure a fair trial.
The court reinforced that adjournments in criminal trials should be granted sparingly and only for valid reasons, emphasizing the importance of timely cross-examination.
Accused have a right to represent themselves through a pleader but cannot cross-examine witnesses using non-advocates without court permission, ensuring procedural integrity.
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
