O R D E R

% 26.02.2024

1. This petition has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. laying a challenge to impugned order dated 08.01.2024 passed in Criminal Revision No. 186/2023 by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Special Judge NDPS), North-East District, Karkardooma Court, in case titled ‘M/s Titoo Stationary & Books Stores vs. M/s Prism Books and Educational Supplier’, dismissing the revision filed against the order dated 12.09.2023 as well as to order dated 12.09.2023 passed by learned MM-01, North East District, Karkardooma Court in Ct. Case No.552/2019, whereby the learned Magistrate has closed the right of the Petitioner to cross-examine the Complainant. Petitioner Company through its Proprietor was the accused and Respondent No.2 Company through its Proprietor was the Complainant before the Trial Court and the parties are hereinafter referred to by their litigating status before this Court.

2. Factual matrix to the extent relevant and necessary is that Respondent filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 CRL.M.C. 618/2024 Page 1 of 7 (‘NI Act’) on account of dishonour of two cheques issued by the Petitioner, dated 24.01.2019 for a sum of Rs.24,36,385/- and cheque dated 28.01.2019 for a sum of Rs.28,97,382/-, respectively. Summons were issued to the Petitioner vide order dated 05.04.2019. On 02.04.2022, Petitioner appeared before the Court and furnished his bail bond and on the same day, notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. was framed against the Petitioner, to which he pleaded ‘not guilty’ and claimed trial. Matter was adjourned to 06.06.2022 for Respondent’s evidence, on which date due to illness of Petitioner’s counsel, evidence was not led and case was adjourned to 26.09.2022, when Respondent was absent and the next date given by the Trial Court was 23.02.2023. Petitioner appeared on the said date before the Court, but as the main counsel representing him was unwell, he requested for an adjournment, which was granted subject to cost of Rs.2,000/- and the matter was directed to be listed for cross-examination of the Respondent on 25.04.2023 at 12:30 PM. Due to the death of the grandfather of the complainant, he did not appear on the said date and the case was adjourned to 01.06.2023. On this date, counsel for the Petitioner sought adjournment as the file had not been received from the previous counsel. Previous cost was, however, paid to the Respondent. Court granted adjournment, fixing the matter for 12.09.2023, subject to cost of Rs.3,000/-. When the matter was called on 12.09.2023, Petitioner appeared with his newly appointed counsel, who sought adjournment for cross-examination stating that earlier counsel had not handed over the case file. On opposition being raised by the counsel for the complainant, Trial Court closed the right of the Petitioner to cross-examine the Respondent and adjourned the matter to 06.11.2023, for recording the statement of the accused.

CRL.M.C. 618/2024 Page 2 of 7

3. Aggrieved with the order dated 12.09.2023, Petitioner filed a revision petition being CRL. REV. No. 186/2023 before the learned District and Sessions Judge, which was finally dismissed vide order dated 08.01.2024, on the ground that Petitioner had deliberately adopted delaying tactics and was hampering the trial proceedings. Assailing both the orders and seeking opportunity to cross examine the complainant, Petitioner filed the present petition.

4. Perusal of order dated 12.09.2023, passed by the learned MM shows that Petitioner’s right of cross examination was closed on the ground that final opportunity had already been granted on 01.06.2023, subject to payment of cost of Rs.3,000/- and Petitioner was guilty of adopting delaying tactics. Revision Court upheld the order of the learned MM on similar grounds reiterating that Petitioner was adopting delay tactics from the beginning and since the amounts involved under the dishonoured cheques were huge, there was a malafide and de