A litigant cannot repeatedly seek the reopening of a concluded trial stage, such as defence evidence, if they have failed to utilize multiple opportunities and the closure of such right has already been affirmed by a revisional court.

ORDER

DATE OF CONCLUSION OF ARGUMENTS 16/03/2026

DATE ON WHICH ORDER IS RESERVED 16/03/2026

FULL ORDER OR OPERATIVE PART Full Order

DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 11/05/2026

BY THE COURT:-

1. The instant Misc. Petition has been preferred by the petitioner, who figures as an accused in proceedings arising under the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act, assailing the order dated 08.10.2025 passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate, NI Act Cases No.2, Bhilwara in Case No.45/2021 whereby the application seeking reopening of defence evidence and grant of further opportunity to adduce evidence in defence came to be rejected.

2. The record of the case reveals that the complaint proceedings have remained pending since the year 2021. After culmination of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused-petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. came to be recorded on 28.08.2023, whereafter sufficient and repeated opportunities were granted to him for leading defence evidence. However, despite indulgence repeatedly shown by the learned trial court over a considerable span of time, the petitioner failed to produce any witness or material in support of his defence.

2.1. The order-sheets placed on record demonstrate a persistent pattern of adjournments sought on behalf of the accused on one pretext or another for the purpose of producing defence evidence, but each such opportunity proved futile. Eventually, on 24.01.2025, the learned trial court, being constrained by the continued inaction and protraction attributable to the accused, specifically observed that in the event defence evidence was not produced on the next date, the right of the accused to adduce such evidence would stand closed.

2.2. Despite the aforesaid categorical caution and final indulgence granted by the trial court, no witness was produced on behalf of the petitioner on the subsequent date i.e. 11.02.2025. Left with no alternative in the prevailing circumstances, and in order to prevent further abuse of the judicial process and unnecessary prolongation of the proceedings, the learned trial court proceeded to close the right of the petitioner to lead defence evidence.

2.3. The petitioner thereafter questioned the aforesaid order dated 11.02.2025 by way of a criminal revision petition before the learned revisional court. The learned Sessions Judge, upon due consideration of the material available on record, dismissed the revision petition vide order dated 20.09.2025, thereby affirming the action of the learned trial court.

2.4. Notwithstanding the dismissal of the revision petition and affirmation of the order closing defence evidence, the petitioner once again moved a fresh application before the learned trial court seeking reopening of defence evidence and grant of yet another opportunity to adduce evidence. The said application too came to be dismissed by the learned trial court through the impugned order presently under challenge.

3. This Court bestowed its thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced and upon careful examination of the record, and finds no illegality, perversity or jurisdictional infirmity in the impugned order.

4. It is manifest from the chronology of events that the petitioner was afforded abundant and more than adequate opportunities to lead evidence in defence. The learned trial court exhibited considerable latitude and procedural indulgence in accommodating the petitioner over an extended period. However, the petitioner failed to avail such opportunities with due diligence. Judicial discretion exercised in favour of a litigant cannot be permi