Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Naveen Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Krishan Lal Bhaluni, deceased, through His LR Trilok Bhaluni – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background: ni act complaint, defence evidence closure after opportunities. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. petitioner's arguments: insufficient opportunities, no dealings, seek evidence chance. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. inherent powers under s.528 bnss limited to grave miscarriage of justice. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. s.309 crpc restricts adjournments absent sufficient cause. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. routine adjournments erode speedy trial; courts enforce s.309 mandate. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 6. no abuse of process; uphold lower courts, dismiss petition. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The petitioner has filed the present petition for setting aside the order dated 19.07.2025, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kinnaur at Rampur, H.P. (learned Revisional Court) upholding the order dated 09.05.2025, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kinnaur at Rampur, H.P. (learned Trial Court) in Criminal Complaint No. 203 of 2016, titled Krishan Lal Bhaluni Vs. Naveen Sharma. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)
High Court inherent powers under BNSS Section 528 exercisable sparingly post-revision only for grave miscarriage of justice; trial court justified closing defence evidence after accused's repeated fa....
In summons trials, closing complainant's evidence justified for repeated non-appearance despite warnings and no exemption application; routine adjournments not permissible, courts must enforce day-to....
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....
Order sheets conclusively record trial proceedings; repeated adjournments despite directions to produce evidence not permitted under fair trial; inherent powers sparingly invoked against closing evid....
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 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 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.
(1) Adjournment – Impediment in speedy trial – Legislature itself has frowned at granting adjournment on flimsy grounds – Even in cases where accused had been enlarged on bail right to a speedy trial....
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
