Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 387 (RAJ)

Ram Niwas v. Manish Jhalani

2015-02-11

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2015
JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 20.05.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.3, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the revisional court') in Criminal Revision No.10/2014, whereby the revision petition has been dismissed. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 11.12.2013 passed by the Additional Metropolitan Magistrate No.9, Jodhpur Metropolitan (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Criminal Case No.2069/2013, whereby the application filed on behalf of the petitioner to give him an opportunity to produce himself as a witness in proceedings under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act, has been rejected. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the proceedings under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act are pending against the petitioner before the trial court, wherein the prosecution evidence was completed on 03.08.2013 and the petitioner sought and was granted opportunity to produce his defence evidence and the matter was fixed on 31.08.2013. On 31.08.2013, the petitioner had again sought opportunity to produce his defence evidence and the matter was fixed on 20.09.2013. On that date also, the petitioner had failed to produce any evidence, therefore, further opportunity was granted to him and the matter was fixed on 03.10.2013, However, on 03.10.2013, the petitioner had failed to produce any evidence before the trial court and, therefore, the trial court has closed the opportunity of the petitioner to produce the defence evidence and the matter was fixed for final arguments. 3. On two subsequent dates i.e. 26.10.2013 and 11.11.2013, the matter was adjourned at the request of learned counsel for the petitioner before the trial court and the next date was fixed as 11.12.2013. On 11.12.2013, learned counsel for the petitioner had moved an application with a prayer that he may be allowed to give his evidence and that application of the petitioner was rejected by the trial court while observing that once the opportunity of producing defence evidence of the petitioner was closed by it on 03.10.2013, no further opportunity can be granted. On 11.12.2013, learned counsel for the petitioner had moved an application with a prayer that he may be allowed to give his evidence and that application of the petitioner was rejected by the trial court while observing that once the opportunity of producing defence evidence of the petitioner was closed by it on 03.10.2013, no further opportunity can be granted. The trial court also observed that the petitioner has filed an application while claiming that he wants to exhibit some documents, which were not in his possession on the date when the trial court had passed the order for closing the defence evidence, however, the said statement of the petitioner is not correct as those documents were available with the petitioner since 29.07.2013. 4. The impugned order passed by the trial court on 11.12.2013 was challenged by the petitioner before the revisional court, however, the revisional court, while taking into consideration the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner, has rejected the same and affirmed the order passed by the trial court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that both the courts below have erred in not granting opportunity to the petitioner to appear before the trial court as a defence witness. It is submitted that the documents sought to be exhibited by the petitioner before the trial court are important for the defence of the petitioner and, therefore, the trial court should have granted an opportunity to produce the same. 6. On the strength of the above arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed that the impugned orders may kindly be set aside and the trial court be directed to allow the petitioner to give his evidence in defence. 7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned orders. 8. It is not in dispute that the trial court was granted as many as four opportunities to the petitioner to produce his evidence, however, on every occasion, the petitioner had failed to produce his defence evidence and the trial court ultimately closed the opportunity of the petitioner to produce his defence evidence on 03.10.2013. It is not in dispute that the order dated 03.10.2013 passed by the trial court of closing the opportunity of the petitioner to produce defence evidence was not challenged by the petitioner in the higher court. 9. It is not in dispute that the order dated 03.10.2013 passed by the trial court of closing the opportunity of the petitioner to produce defence evidence was not challenged by the petitioner in the higher court. 9. It is also not in dispute that the documents sought to be exhibited by the petitioner were available with him on 29.07.2013 even prior of granting the opportunity to the petitioner to produce his defence evidence. 10. Looking to the above facts, this Court is of the opinion that the courts below have not committed any illegality in passing the impugned orders. Hence, there is no force in this criminal misc. petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed.Stay petition also stands dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******