Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1489 (PNJ)

Rajiv Mehra v. State of Punjab

2012-10-15

NARESH KUMAR SANGHI

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J.:- Prayer in this petition filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C., is for quashing of the orders dated 1.9.2011 and 14.9.2011 (Annexures P-5 and P-6 respectively), whereby the evidence of the petitioner-accused was closed by order of the Court. 2. In a nut-shell, the facts of the case are that respondent No. 2-complainant, Ram Parshad, filed a complaint, dated 12.8.2005, alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, against the petitioner-accused, Rajiv Mehra, as a cheque of Rs.3,26,955/-, issued by the petitioner-accused in favour of respondent No. 2-complainant, had bounced. 3. After completion of all the formalities, the petitioner-accused was summoned. Respondent No. 2-complainant led his evidence and thereafter on 14.9.2010 statement of the petitioner-accused under Section 313, Cr.P.C., was recorded and the case was adjourned to 12.10.2010 for defence evidence. On the adjourned date, an application was moved by the petitioner-accused, but the same was dismissed on 28.2.2011. Thereafter, on 17.3.2011, 4.4.2011, 6.5.2011, 30.5.2011, 15.6.2011, 16.5.2011 and 9.8.2011, the case was adjourned to lead the defence evidence, but no such evidence was led on the said dates. On 20.8.2011, the petitioner-accused produced DW-1, Rohit, whose examination-in-chief was recorded and thereafter, the case was adjourned to 1.9.2011, on which date his cross-examination was conducted and the learned Trial Court closed the oral evidence of the petitioner-accused and adjourned the case to 7.9.2011 for producing the documentary evidence only. The petitioner-accused moved an application for examination of his Chartered Accountant to enable him to produce certain documents. The said application was also dismissed on 14.9.2011. The orders dated 1.9.2011 and 14.9.2011, are under challenge before this Court. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance perused the material available on record. 5. The learned Trial Court had afforded as many as 13 opportunities to the petitioner-accused to lead his entire defence evidence, but he failed to do so. The prayer of the petitioner-accused to afford him more opportunities to lead the defence evidence, has rightly been declined by the learned Court below. I am of the considered view that the learned Trial Court has assigned good reasons in that regard. The perusal of the interim orders (Annexure A-1) produced by the petitioner-accused, in fact, reveals that he had been afforded more than the required opportunities for leading defence evidence. 6. I am of the considered view that the learned Trial Court has assigned good reasons in that regard. The perusal of the interim orders (Annexure A-1) produced by the petitioner-accused, in fact, reveals that he had been afforded more than the required opportunities for leading defence evidence. 6. As a sequel to the above discussion, there is no merit in the present petition and the same is hereby dismissed.