Order sheets conclusively record trial proceedings; repeated adjournments despite directions to produce evidence not permitted under fair trial; inherent powers sparingly invoked against closing evidence right after prolonged delay.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition against the order dated 08.07.2025 passed by learned Additional Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. (learned Trial Court) vide which the right of the accused to produce the handwriting and signatures was closed. (The 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 complainant filed a complaint before the learned Trial Court for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act). It was asserted that the accused issued a cheque of Rs.5,40,000/- to pay the amount of cloth purchased vide bill No. 4069. The complainant presented the cheque at his bank, but it was dishonoured with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’. The complainant served a notice upon the accused, but he failed to repay the amount. Hence, a complaint was filed to take action against the accused as per the law.

3. Learned Trial Court summoned the accused. The accused filed an application under Sections 45 and 73 of the Indian Evidence Act for sending the bill No. 4069 for comparison with the signatures on the cheque. This application was allowed by the learned Trial Court, and the accused was directed to produce his signature and handwriting on 20.06.2024. The accused sought exemption from appearance on 20.6.2024, which was allowed and the matter was adjourned for 20.07.2024. The accused was exempted from appearing, and he filed PAN and ID Cards. The matter was listed for consideration. Learned Trial Court directed the accused on 23.09.2024 to produce some other documents, including the Passport. Signatures on the Passport could not be sent for comparison. Learned counsel for the accused prayed that the cheque containing hand handwriting of the petitioner be sent for comparison with the signature on the bill. However, the Court refused the prayer and listed the matter for 27.11.2024. The accused again sought exemption on 27.11.2024, which was allowed. The matter was again listed on 11.03.2025. The accused produced documents of his bank containing his signature, and the matter was posted for 09.05.2025. The accused sought an exemption from personal appearance on 09.05.2025, and the matter was posted for 08.07.2025 as the last opportunity. The accused sought adjournment, which was allowed, but the right to produce the documents was closed. The accused had produced various documents before the Court, but these were not taken on record. The order was wrongly passed. The comparison of the signatures is essential. An opportunity for a fair trial was denied to the petitioner. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the order passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside.

4. Mr Amar Deep Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the accused had produced various documents before the Court, which were sufficient for comparison. The learned Trial Court was not justified in closing the right to produce the documents; 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. A perusal of the certified copies of the order sheet maintained by the learned Trial Court does not establish the plea taken by the accused. The order sheet da