The court emphasizes the right to present defense evidence in maintaining a fair trial under the Negotiable Instruments Act.

ORDER

Dated this the 08^th day of January, 2026 The petitioner is the accused in S.T.Nos.18/2019, 465/2019 and 12/2020 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-IV, Kollam (‘Trial Court’, in short), which have been filed by the 1^st respondent alleging that the petitioner has committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act , 1881 (‘Act’, in short). All the complaints have been consolidated and are being jointly tried.

2. The petitioner states that, the 1^st respondent and two witnesses were examined to prove the case. After that the case was posted for recording the statement of the petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Subsequently, the case was adjourned for defence evidence. Although the petitioner filed an application under Section 315 Cr.P.C. along with the witness list, to adduce the defence evidence and the same being allowed, as there was no sitting in the Trial Court, the case was adjourned from time to time. In the meantime, the petitioner’s son met with a serious accident and was hospitalised. Consequently, the petitioner’s counsel filed an application to adjourn the defence evidence, which was initially allowed. Later the Trial Court recorded that the petitioner was not ready to adduce the defence evidence and closed the same. Accordingly the petitioner filed an application to re-open the evidence and let in the defence evidence. However, due to inadvertence on the part of his counsel, the application was dismissed as not pressed. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a fresh application for an identical relief, which the Trial Court dismissed by Annexure A1 order. Aggrieved by Annexure A1 order, the petitioner preferred a Revision Petition before the Court of Sessions, Kollam, which is also dismissed by Annexure A5 order. Annexures A1 and A5 orders are irregular, improper and illegal. Hence, the Crl.M.C.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no legal enforceable debt payable by the petitioner to the 1^st respondent. The 1^st respondent is relying on a fabricated document to substantiate the complaints. Although the petitioner confronted the 1^st respondent with the said document, he has stated that it has been signed by the petitioner. In the above circumstances, the petitioner intends to let in defence evidence to shift the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Act. However, due to the circumstances beyond the petitioner’s control, he could not let in defence evidence on the date the case was posted. It is without comprehending any of the above aspects that the Trial Court as well as the Revisional Court have passed the impugned orders. Therefore, the petitioner may be permitted to let in defence evidence which will ensure a fair trial. Hence, the Crl.M.C may be allowed.

5. The learned counsel for the 1^st respondent vehemently opposed the Crl.M.C. He submits that the petitioner’s sole intention is to protract the determination of the complaints. The complaints were filed as early as in 2019-2020. The petitioner’s intention is to get the disputed document examined by a handwriting expert, which would further procrastinate the determination of the complaints. The petitioner has not denied the execution of the cheques. So as long as he admitted the execution of the cheques, all the other matters are irrelevant. Hence, the Crl.M.C may be dismissed.

6. On going through the materials on record, it is seen that the petitioner had filed an application to let in defence evidence along with a list of witnesses. The said application was allowed and the Trial Court permi