HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.6798/2019 Ramniwas Soni S/o Shri Navrang Lal Soni, R/o Rup Laxmi Jewelers, Subhash Mandi, Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar.

----Petitioner Versus Sunil Kumar Soni S/o Mali Ram Soni, R/o National Highway Road No.52, Main Bus Stand, Post Bawri, Ps Ringus, District Sikar.

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vidhut Kumar Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Avi Airun for Mr. Jitender Mitruka JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

Order

06/03/20 26

1. A challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 26.09.2019 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ringus, District Sikar in Criminal Case No.441/2015, by which the petitioner’s opportunity to produce defence evidence has been closed by the Court below.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is facing trial for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the Court below. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner and the respondent-complainant are close relatives, i.e., maternal uncle and nephew and since they were exploring the possibility of compromise, the petitioner’s defence evidence could not be led and that was the precise reason for the cause of delay in the same. Learned counsel submits that this fact has not been appreciated by the Court below and the order impugned has been passed whereby the petitioner has been deprived of the opportunity to lead defence evidence in support of his case before the Trial Court. Learned counsel submits that one last opportunity be granted to the petitioner for adducing his defence evidence, subject to payment of adequate cost to the respondent-complainant.

3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-complainant opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the complaint, filed against the petitioner, is lying pending before the Trial Court since 2015 and deliberately delay has been caused by the petitioner with intention to prolong the trial. Hence, under these circumstances, the Trial Court has not committed any error in passing the order impugned and the instant petition is liable to be rejected.

4. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record.

5. Perusal of the record indicates that the petitioner is facing trial under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act since 2015. The order sheet placed on record indicates that sufficient opportunity has already been granted to the petitioner on previous occasions for adducing defence evidence on 20.07.2019, 07.09.2019 and 26.09.2019 and on each and every date, the petitioner has failed to produce his evidence. This fact has not been reflected on the record that there talks of compromise were going on between the parties and such compromise, was the precise reason for the petitioner’s inability to adduce his defence evidence. However, looking to the fact that without producing defence evidence, the petitioner would not be in a position to put his defence before the Trial Court and in the interest of justice, one last opportunity is granted to the petitioner to produce his defence evidence before the Trial Court within a period of 15 days subject to the following terms and conditions:

(I) The petitioner would pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the respondent-complainant within a period of 15 days from today.

(II) The petitioner would plant 25 shade bearing trees in his vicinity in public area. The aforesaid process would be carried over by him within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order and he is further directed to look after these shade bearing trees.

(III) The petitioner would submit the photographs of these shade bearing trees along-with an undertaking before the trial Court to show that the Condition No.II imposed by this Court which has been duly complied with by him and he would take care of these plants til