##PAGE1## ##PAGE2##

CRL OP No. 18517 of 2026

2. The case arises out of a private complaint filed for the offence

punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. When

the matter was posted for judgment, the petitioner filed applications to reopen

the case and to receive the list of defence witnesses.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, on several earlier

occasions, the complainant was absent. Ultimately, the complainant was cross-

examined by the learned counsel for the accused on 10.03.2026, and on the very

same day, the accused was also questioned under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.

Thereafter, the matter was posted on 18.03.2026 for filing the list of defence

witnesses. However, without granting any further opportunity, the defence

evidence was closed, the matter was posted for arguments, and thereafter for

pronouncement of judgment.

4. It is the specific case of the petitioner that, although the complainant

alleged that the accused had personally handed over the cheque, the accused

was, at the relevant point of time, serving in the Horticulture Department and

possesses documentary evidence to substantiate the same. It was therefore

contended that, unless an opportunity is granted to adduce defence evidence, the

accused would be put to grave prejudice.

__________

Page2 of 5

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/07/2026 03:31:22 pm )

CRL OP No. 18517 of 2026

5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the

petitioner.

6. It is true that, where the defence evidence has been closed and an

application is subsequently filed seeking reopening of the case, the Court may,

in an appropriate case, having regard to the valuable right of the accused to

effectively defend himself, permit the reopening of the defence evidence.

7. However, in the present case, the defence evidence was closed on

18.03.2026. Thereafter, the matter was posted for arguments on 25.03.2026

and again on 27.03.2026, at the request of the learned counsel on either side, the

matter was adjourned to 30.03.2026 for arguments. The trial Court has

specifically recorded that both the learned counsel were present, arguments

were heard, and the matter was thereafter reserved for judgment on 24.04.2026.

8. No application was filed seeking reopening of the case or permission to

adduce defence evidence until the matter had reached the stage of

pronouncement of judgment. Once the arguments had been concluded and the

matter had been reserved for judgment, the trial Court was fully justified in

declining the request made by the petitioner.

__________

Page3 of 5

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/07/2026 03:31:22 pm )

CRL OP No. 18517 of 2026

9. In such circumstances, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the

order passed by the trial Court warranting interference under Section 528 of the

BNSS. This Court finds no merits in this Criminal Original Petition.

10. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands disposed of.

15-07-2026

Neutral Citation: Yes/No

av

To

The learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,

Kattumannarkoil.

__________

Page4 of 5

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/07/2026 03:31:22 pm )

CRL OP No. 18517 of 2026

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

av

CRL OP No. 18517 of 2026

15-07-2026

__________

Page5 of 5

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/07/2026 03:31:22 pm )