Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 13135
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Amit Sharma, J
YOGENDER SHARMA – Appellant
Versus
RATTAN LAL – Respondent
CRL.M.C. 1789/2024
VARUN SINGH
The right to present defense evidence must be balanced with judicial efficiency, allowing one final opportunity for the petitioner to present witnesses subject to costs.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Petition challenging the order closing the opportunity to lead defense evidence in a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act - The petitioner was denied the opportunity to present two witnesses due to prior delays in the trial process. The court noted that despite several opportunities, the petitioner failed to complete the defense evidence. However, in the interest of justice, the court allowed one final opportunity to present the evidence, subject to a cost of Rs. 25,000/- to be paid to the respondent. (Paras 1, 6, 8, 9)
(B) Fair Trial - The right to a fair trial includes the opportunity to present evidence, but it must be balanced against the need for judicial efficiency and the avoidance of undue delays. (Paras 7, 8)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought to reverse an order that closed the opportunity to present defense evidence in a long-pending complaint case under the NI Act, citing delays caused by previous counsel's absence and court adjournments.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner had been given multiple opportunities to present evidence but failed to do so, yet allowed one last chance to ensure fairness.
Issues: The main issues were whether the petitioner should be allowed to present additional witnesses after multiple delays and the implications of the right to a fair trial.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of balancing the right to present evidence with the need to avoid further delays in the judicial process.
Result: Petition allowed with conditions.
% 02.04.2024
1. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the CrPC seeks following prayers:-
- “In the aforementioned facts and circumstances of this case, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon‟ble Court may graciously be pleased to:-
- a) allow the present petition and set aside / reverse the impugned order dated 16.01.2024 passed by Sh. Shashank Nandan Bhatt, Ld. M.M.- 06 (NI Act), South-west, Dwarka, in Ct. Cases No. 12701/2020 titled as “Rattan Lal vs. Yogender Singh”, and grant opportunity to the above - mentioned two witness to lead the defense evidence; AND/OR b) pass any other Order(s) deemed fit in the interests of justice and equity.”
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that vide the impugned order dated 16.01.2024, the learned Trial Court has closed the opportunity for the petitioner to lead the defence evidence in CC No. 12701/2020, titled as „Rattan Lal v. Yogender Sharma‟, under Section 138 of the NI Act filed by the present respondent. It is pointed out that prior to the said date, i.e., 11.12.2023, the lawyers were abstaining from the work and therefore the matter was notified for the aforesaid date, i.e., 16.01.2024. It is submitted that prior to that the accused had been appearing before the learned Trial Court. It is further submitted that the accused had been examined and discharged in pursuance of his application under Section 315 of the CrPC. It is submitted that a list of witnesses was submitted which was composed of 3 witnesses out of which one witness, namely Virender Sharma was examined in chief and cross-examined on the previous date of hearing, i.e., 02.12.2023. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that other two witnesses are yet to be examined, however, the opportunity of the same has been declined.
3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that the present complaint has been pending since 2015 and the conduct of the petitioner throughout the course of the trial has been to delay the same. It is pointed out that on previous occasions, coercive steps had to be taken by the learned Trial Court to ensure the presence of the petitioner to proceed with the trial.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner handed up in Court today order sheets with respect to the present complaint case.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Perusal of the record reflects that the present case was fixed for defence evidence vide order dated 22.01.2023. Perusal of the said order reflects that the petitioner was directed to file a list of witnesses within 7 days and also, liberty was granted to move an application under Section 315 of the CrPC in case he wants to examine himself as a defence evidence and the matter was listed for 10.02.2023. The order sheet of 10.02.2023 has not been placed on record. However, the order sheet dated 13.03.2023 reflects that the petitioner did not comply with the order dated 22.01.2023 but, he moved an application under Section 315 of the CrPC on the said date of hearing. Further order sheet dated 17.04.2023 reflects that an adjournment was sought on behalf of the accused on the ground that his main counsel was not available and the same was permitted by observing that no further adjournment shall be given to the petitioner to lead defence evidence. On the next date of hearing, i.e., 08.05.2023, the accused again sought adjournment and did not lead any defence evidence. Thereafter on 03.07.2023, the petitioner examined himself as DW-1. Further vide order dated 14.09.2023, again one final opportunity was given to the petitioner to lead the defence evidence. Thereafter on 25.09.2023, again the matter was listed for defence evidence and list of witnesses was filed, whereupon the accused sought further time to produce his witnesses. On the next date of hearing, i.e., 21.11.2023, the accuse
