Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1335 (HP)

Anil Kumar v. Shahid Khan Forest Contractor

2018-07-18

VIVEK SINGH THAKUR

body2018
JUDGMENT Vivek Singh Thakur, J. (Oral) - The petitioner, herein, is an accused in criminal complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), who is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 28.06.2018, passed by the trial Court, for closing his right to lead evidence in defence for his failure to produce the same on the date fixed by the trial Court as last opportunity to do so, in case No.90/3 of 2015, titled Shahid Khan Forest Contractor v. Anil Kumar. 2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that next date for hearing before the trial Court for addressing the arguments has been fixed for 31st August, 2018. 3. Chapter XVII of the Act has been incorporated with a specific object of enacting a special provision by incorporating a strict liability so far as the cheque in Negotiable Instrument is concerned. The law relating to negotiable instruments is the law of commercial world and has been legislated to facilitate the activities in trade and commerce making provision of giving sanctity to the instruments of credit which could be deemed to be convertible into money and easily passable from one person to another. 4. The object is both, punitive as also compensatory and restitutive. It is an unique exercise which blurs the dividing line between civil and criminal jurisdiction. It provides a single forum and single proceedings for enforcement of criminal liability for dishonouring the cheque and for enforcement of civil liability for realization of the cheque amount, thereby obviating the need for the creditor to move to different fora for relief. Main purpose behind it is to provide a speedy disposal of the dispute arising out of a transaction by cheque. At the same time, it is also to be kept in mind that there is not only the provision of levy of fine/compensation but also sentencing the accused-respondent to imprisonment curtailing his prison liberty for commission of an offence. Therefore, balance of interest has to be maintained by the Courts. At the same time, an endeavour is always expected from the Court to avoid deliberate delay caused by any party with a purpose to linger on the proceedings. 5. Therefore, balance of interest has to be maintained by the Courts. At the same time, an endeavour is always expected from the Court to avoid deliberate delay caused by any party with a purpose to linger on the proceedings. 5. It is evident from the order-sheets placed on record that statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 was recorded on 10.05.2018 and on that day the petitioner had desired to lead evidence in defence and therefore, he was granted time to take steps within five days for examination of defence witnesses, but no steps were taken by him till next date of hearing i.e. 06.06.2018, whereupon last opportunity was granted to him to produce DWs on 28.06.2018, but on that day also, he again failed to produce the defence evidence, whereupon the trial Court has closed his right to lead evidence in defence. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that keeping in view punitive provision of law, by taking a lenient view, at least one opportunity may be granted to petitioneraccused to lead evidence in defence. 7. Now, for considering prayer of petitioner for granting him opportunity to lead evidence in defence, issuance of notice to the respondent, would not only cause unnecessarily harassment to respondent-complainant but would also cause undue delay in proceeding before the trial Court, which is at the last stage. In such a situation, it would be in the interest of parties that for ends of justice one more opportunity is granted to the petitioner to lead defence evidence, subject to payment of costs to the respondent complainant. 8. On persuasive submission made on behalf of petitioner by way of special indulgence, one more opportunity is granted to the petitioner to lead evidence in defence on his own responsibility on 31st August, 2018, the date already fixed before the trial Court, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 3,000/- to the respondent well before the next date of hearing and petitioner shall also supply the copy of this order to the respondent either personally or through counsel within seven days from the receipt of the same. It is made clear that no further opportunity for leading evidence in defence shall be granted by the trial Court on the request made by or on behalf of the petitioner-accused. The petition is accordingly disposed of in above terms, so also pending application(s), if any. 9. It is made clear that no further opportunity for leading evidence in defence shall be granted by the trial Court on the request made by or on behalf of the petitioner-accused. The petition is accordingly disposed of in above terms, so also pending application(s), if any. 9. The Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the trial Court immediately.