Summoning witnesses under Section 311 CrPC constitutes a deemed allowance of the application. Furthermore, judicial records of proceedings are conclusive, and the right to a fair trial does not entitle an accused to seek repetitive adjournments or employ dilatory tactics to prolong a trial.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The present petitions are filed against the order dated 19.08.2025 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chopal (Circuit Court Theog), District Shimla, H.P. (learned Trial Court) in Criminal Complaints titled Megh Raj vs. Satinder Goyal vide which the applications filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 311 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C) have been dismissed and the evidence has been closed by the order of the Court. (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 against the accused for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act. The Court issued the notice, and the accused appeared before the Court. Notice of accusation was put to the accused. The statement of the complainant was recorded on 24.11.2022, and the accused was cross-examined on 17.12.2022. The accused took a specific defence that he had nothing to do with Sai Provisional Store, Chambaghat, Solan, where the demand notice was stated to have been served. The accused filed an application under Section 311 of CrPC. along with the list of the witnesses. The learned Trial Court dismissed the application under Section 311 of CrPC. The accused petitions against the orders before this Court. This Court allowed the petition and set aside the orders passed by the learned Trial Court. A direction was issued to the learned Trial Court to ensure the presence of the witnesses as long as the steps were being taken by the accused. The learned Trial Court summoned the witnesses for 20.12.2024 and 21.12.2024. Yashwant Singh was present in the Court, but was unable to produce the record; hence, he could not be examined. The learned Trial Court closed the defence evidence. The orders passed by the learned Trial Court are erroneous. The learned Trial Court had to decide the application first, and the witnesses were required to be summoned thereafter. The learned Trial Court erred in holding that sufficient opportunities were granted to the accused. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the order passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside.

3. Mr Chandresh Pal, learned vice counsel representing the petitioner, submitted that the learned Trial Court erred in summoning the witnesses without deciding the application under Section 311 of the CrPC. The witness had not brought the record, and his statement could not have been recorded. There was no fault on the part of the accused. Hence, he prayed that the present application be allowed and the order passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside.

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

5. This court had held in Cr.MMO No. 749, 750 and 751 of 2024 decided on 30.09.2024 that the learned Trial Court shall ensure the presence of the witnesses as long as the steps are being taken by the accused and will decide the application for leading the additional evidence as per the law. Learned Trial Court passed an order on 17.10.2024 in the presence of learned counsel for the parties that the witnesses mentioned at Sl. No. 1 to 5 be summoned on 20.12.2024 and 21.12.2024 on taking steps. It is true that the learned Trial Court had not passed a formal order allowing the application. However, the fact that the witnesses were ordered to be summoned clearly showed that the application was allowed. The learned Trial Court noticed on 20.12.2024 that the statement of DW at Sl. No.1 had already been recorded. Hence, he was discharged. The other witness Yashwant Singh was present in the Court, but the learned counsel refused to examine the witness by saying that he would not examine the witness until the application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. was dispose