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.

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 listed for recording the defence evidence on 7.10.2025, when no evidence was produced. Learned Trial Court noticed that ample opportunities had been availed and the last opportunity was granted to the petitioner to produce the evidence; however, no plausible reason was assigned for the non-production of the evidence. Hence, the evidence was closed by the order of the Court.

3. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Trial Court, the petitioner/accused has filed the present petition asserting that the learned Trial Court erred in passing the order. Non-examination of the defence witnesses would prejudice the petitioner’s case, and he would be deprived of establishing his innocence. The statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded on 4.8.2025. The matter was listed on 25.8.2025, 3.9.2025 and 7.10.2025. Only three opportunities were granted to the petitioner to produce the evidence, and the learned Trial Court was not justified in closing the evidence. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the order passed by the learned Trial Court be set-aside.

4. I have heard Mr Ashok Kumar, learned vice counsel representing the petitioner, who submitted that the learned Trial Court had only granted three adjournments to the petitioner/accused. The non-production of the defence evidence would materially prejudice the petitioner’s case. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the order passed by the learned Trial Court be set-aside.

5. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

6. Section 346 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), corresponding to Section 309 of the Cr.P.C., deals with the adjournments. It reads that every inquiry or trial shall be concluded on a day-to-day basis unless the Court finds the adjournment necessary for reasons to be recorded. (2), 4th proviso provides that not more than two adjournments shall be granted at the request of a party except where the circumstances are beyond the control of the party after hearing the objections of the other party, and recording the reasons in writing. Thus, the legislature has restricted the number of permissible adjournments to two. In the present case, the learned Trial Court had admittedly granted three adjournments beyond the permissible limit, and the petitioner’s grievance is not justified.

7. It was submitted that a fair trial demands that adequate opportunities be granted to the accused to defend himself. This submission will not help the petitioner/accused. It was held in Asha Ranjan v. State of Bihar , (2017) 4 SCC 397: (2017) 2 SCC (Cri) 376: 2017 SCC OnLine SC 140 that the accused cannot go on seeking adjournments in the name of a fair trial. It was observed at page