Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Kuldeep Singh – Appellant
Versus
Himachal Pradesh Commercial Corporation – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. cheque dishonour complaint; accused seeks handwriting comparison. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. order sheets confirm repeated non-production of signatures. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. order sheets conclusively record court proceedings. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. repeated adjournments undermine fair trial and speedy justice. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. inherent powers sparingly exercised; petition dismissed. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
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
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....
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....
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....
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....
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....
Accused have a right to represent themselves through a pleader but cannot cross-examine witnesses using non-advocates without court permission, ensuring procedural integrity.
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 a fair trial necessitates adequate legal representation; refusal to grant adjournment undermines this right, potentially resulting in miscarriage of 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.
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
