Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1775 (RAJ)

Jaldeep Swami v. State of Rajasthan

2023-09-15

MANOJ KUMAR GARG

body2023
JUDGMENT : MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J. 1. The instant misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 22.03.2023 passed by learned District and Session Judge, Udaipur by which the learned revisional court dismissed the petitioner's revision petition as not maintainable, preferred against the order dated 06.01.2023 passed by learned Special Judicial Magistrate (NI Act Cases), Court No. 2, Udaipur whereby the learned trial court allowed the petitioner to cross-examine the complainant on payment of cost of Rs. 3,000/- and also imposed a condition that if the petitioner fails to cross-examine the complainant on the given date and time, then his right to cross-examine the complainant shall automatically be closed. By this petition, the petitioner also challenges the order dated 06.01.2023, passed by this trial court. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had no intention to delay the trial and due to genuine reasons, he could not appear before the trial court to cross examine the complainant and the trial court closed his right to cross-examine the complainant. Counsel submits that order of the trial court Closing the right of the petitioner to cross-examine the complainant is perverse and illegal. Counsel submits that the learned revisional court has also committed error in dismissing the revision as not maintainable. Counsel submits that in the interest of justice, at least one opportunity ought to have been given to the petitioner to cross-examine the complainant as the matter relates to offence under Section 138 NI Act and in NI cases, cross-examination of the complainant is very much essential for just decision of the case. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for respondent No. 2-complainant have vehemently opposed the prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that despite opportunity given by the trial court on payment of cost of Rs. 3,000/- the petitioner failed to deposit the cost and also failed to cross-examine the complainant on the given date and time. The order of the trial court as well as revisional court does not suffer from any illegality and perversity, hence requires no interference from this Court. 4. I have considered the arguments advanced before me and perused the impugned orders as well as carefully gone through the material available on record. 5. The order of the trial court as well as revisional court does not suffer from any illegality and perversity, hence requires no interference from this Court. 4. I have considered the arguments advanced before me and perused the impugned orders as well as carefully gone through the material available on record. 5. It is well-settled that the right to cross-examination is always available to the accused-applicant and the same cannot be denied to him. Taking into consideration the facts that the petitioner is facing trial for offence under Section 138 of NI Act and since the right of cross-examination is a valuable right in order to prove the petitioner's innocence, therefore, in the interest of justice it will be just and appropriate to grant one opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the complainant. 6. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, one opportunity is granted to the petitioner to cross-examine the complainant subject to deposition of cost of Rs. 6,000/- before the trial court. The next date before the trial court is 13.10.2023. On that date, the complainant shall remain present before the trial court and on the same day, the petitioner shall cross-examine the complainant upon deposition of cost of Rs. 6,000/- as aforesaid, which shall be disbursed to the complainant immediately. It is clarified that if the petitioner fails to deposit the cost as well as cross-examine the complainant on 13.10.2023, then the trial court shall close his right to cross-examine and no further opportunity shall be granted to the petitioner for cross-examine the complainant. 7. The misc. petition is disposed of accordingly. 8. Stay petition also stands disposed of.