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 failure to produce despite sufficient opportunities, enforcing expeditious trials.

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.)

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the predecessor in interest of the complainant filed a complaint against the accused before the learned Trial Court for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (N.I. Act). The complaint was listed for defence evidence on 09.05.2025; however, no evidence was produced on that day. Learned Trial Court noticed that the matter was listed for recording of defence witnesses on 17.06.2023, and sufficient opportunities were availed by the accused to lead the evidence, but the evidence was not produced; therefore, the evidence was closed by the order of the Court.

3. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Trial Court, the accused filed a revision, which was decided by the learned Revisional Court. Learned Revisional Court held that the accused had failed to take any steps as he had availed various opportunities for examination of the complainant. He failed to produce any evidence or take any steps; therefore, the learned Trial Court had rightly closed the evidence. Hence, the revision filed by the accused was dismissed.

4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the orders passed by the learned Courts below, the accused has filed the present petition asserting that the learned Courts below misconstrued the provisions of law and passed the erroneous orders. They acted with material illegalities. The accused had filed an application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), which was allowed by the Court. The orders passed by the learned Courts below are harsh. The accused has no dealings with the complainant, and he had not purchased anything from him. The amount was transferred to the complainant’s family members. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the orders passed by the learned Courts below be set aside.

5. Mr. Rajeev Sood, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused, submitted that the learned Trial Court erred in closing the right of the accused to lead evidence. Sufficient opportunities were not granted to the petitioner to lead evidence. He was deprived of his right to put his defence before the Court. The accused had no dealings with the complainant, and the amount was transferred to the account of the family members of the complainant. The petitioner wants to prove this fact by leading evidence. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and an opportunity be granted to the accused/petitioner to lead his evidence.

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

7. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 of CrPC) against an order dismissing the revision pe