The accused has the right to present defense witnesses in a trial, and the trial court must issue summons unless there are valid grounds for refusal, ensuring that fair trial rights are upheld.

JUDGMENT

1. This Criminal Revision Petition is directed against the impugned order dated 27.07.2021 passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision No.06 of 2019 affirming the order dated 14.06.2019 passed in N.I Case No. 11 of 2016 refusing to grant further adjournment in favour of the petitioner (accused) to adduce evidence of defence witnesses.

2. Heard Mr. S. K. Deb, learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the petitioner along with Ms. Ria Chakraborty, Advocate. Also heard Mr. Samar Das, learned counsel appearing for the private respondent and Mr. Ratan Datta, learned Public Prosecutor representing the State.

3. Short question involved in this criminal revision petition is about the correctness of the impugned order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, South Tripura, Belonia refusing to allow further chance to the accused (petitioner herein) for adducing evidence of defence witnesses.

4. Factual background of the case is as under:

Smt. Rikta Paul Sarkar, wife of Late Sankar Prasad Sarkar alias Sankar Sarkar of Baidya Tilla, Belonia lodged a written complaint in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Belonia on 20.07.2016 alleging, inter alia, that accused Milan Paul, a business man, had taken loan of a sum of rupees ten lakhs from the husband of the complainant in July, 2013. In order to repay the loan accused Milan Paul had issued cheque No. 322197 dated 04.09.2015 (Exbt.1) drawn on State Bank of India in the name of said Sankar Sarkar, husband of the complainant. Since the complainant and her husband maintained their bank accounts in State Bank of India at its Belonia branch, her husband had presented the cheque to SBI at the Belonia branch for encashment on 15.09.2015. But the cheque was returned unpaid for the reason that amount available in the account of the accused was not sufficient for encashment of the cheque. Complainant's husband sent statutory notice to the accused through his lawyer demanding payment of the amount of the cheque which was dishonoured by the bank. Despite receiving notice accused neither replied nor paid the money.

5. Husband of the complainant died at Chennai during his treatment at St. Isabel Hospital in Chennai on 10.04.2016. After the death of her husband complainant returned to Agartala on 07.06.2016 and obtained survival certificate from the competent authority. While she was searching for the papers relating to bank deposits of her deceased husband, she noticed the bounced cheque and the connected papers. She immediately contacted her lawyer and handed over the papers to him. As a result, some delay occurred in filing the complaint at the Court.

6. The order passed by the trial Court would demonstrate that initially the trial Court declined to admit the complaint petition for hearing mainly on the ground that complaint was not filed by the holder of the cheque and there was no provision in N.I Act to deal with an application for condonation of delay. The Trial Court recorded these findings in its order dated 20.07.2016 and dismissed the complaint.

7. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order dated 20.07.2016, complainant petitioner preferred a criminal revision being Criminal Revision No.13 of 2016 in the Court of the Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Belonia. By order dated 27.03.2017, the Sessions Judge affirmed the said order dated 20.07.2016 passed by the trial Court. The relevant portion of the order of the leaned Sessions Judge is as under:

'[7] In the case at hand, the admitted position is that, the complainant Smt. Rikta Pal Sarkar is neither payee nor holder in due course as defined in Section 7 and 9 of the N.I Act respectively. Therefore, not competent to file the complaint. Meaning thereby, in criminal court the complainant has no remedy.'

8. Aggrieved petitioner then approached this Court by filing Criminal Revision Petition No.33 of 2017.

9. This court by order dated 09.08.2017 in Criminal Revision Petition No.33 of 2017 held that complainant was e