Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 179 (HP)

Dheeraj Sharma v. Ashok Kumar

2025-01-22

BIPIN CHANDER NEGI

body2025
JUDGMENT : Bipin Chander Negi, J. The present criminal revision petition has been preferred against order dated 21.12.2024, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dalhousie, District Kangra, in Case NIA Act No.42 of 2023, appended along with present petition as Annexure P-1, whereby the defence of the present petitioner/accused has been closed. 2. Heard counsel for the petitioner, perused the record appended along with present petition and the impugned order. 3. From a perusal of the order sheets appended along with the present petition, it is evident that after conclusion of the evidence of the complainant, the statement of the petitioner/accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on 09.08.2024. In the statement so made by the petitioner/accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner/accused had denied the allegations leveled against him and had claimed to lead defence evidence. Hence, on 09.08.2024, the petitioner/accused was directed to take steps within a week for leading evidence. The matter thereafter was posted for 01.10.2024. 4. On 01.10.2024, the petitioner/accused was not present. On his behalf, an application for exemption was filed. The same was considered and allowed. The counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/accused sought more time for leading defence evidence. The same was allowed in the interest of justice and the matter was now posted for 11.11.2024. Since in terms of order dated 09.08.2024, no steps had been taken by the petitioner/accused for leading defence evidence, therefore, on 01.10.2024, when more time was sought for leading defence evidence, the same was granted on self responsibility and the matter was posted for 11.11.2024. 5. On 11.11.2024, yet again, the petitioner/accused was not present. An application for exemption was filed on his behalf. The same was considered and allowed. Here again, the counsel for the petitioner/accused sought more time for leading defence evidence on self responsibility. Time, as prayed, was allowed. The opportunity granted was by way of an exceptional last opportunity and the petitioner/accused was to produce the defence evidence on his own responsibility, on 21.12.2024. 6. Yet again, on 21.12.2024 the petitioner/accused was not present. He filed an application for exemption, which was considered and allowed. Once again, despite having availed an exceptional last opportunity on the previous date, i.e., 11.11.2024, on 21.12.2024, no defence evidence was present. 6. Yet again, on 21.12.2024 the petitioner/accused was not present. He filed an application for exemption, which was considered and allowed. Once again, despite having availed an exceptional last opportunity on the previous date, i.e., 11.11.2024, on 21.12.2024, no defence evidence was present. The Court, in the facts and attending circumstances of the case, closed the right of the petitioner/accused to lead defence evidence. 7. Repeated adjournments by the counsels in mechanical and routine manner affects timely dispensation of justice. As a consequence whereof, trust and confidence of the litigant in the justice delivery system is shaken. In order to create an efficient justice dispensation system and maintain faith in rule of law, Courts are expected to be diligent and take timely action. There is a need to change the work culture and to get out of adjournment culture, which has to a great extent shattered the confidence and trust of litigants in the justice delivery system. 8. Granting of repeated adjournments in routine manner and how it affects the justice delivery system came to be considered before the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ishwarlal Mali Rathod vs. Gopal and Others, 2021 (12) SCC 612 , wherein, it has been held as under:- “9. Today the judiciary and the justice delivery system is facing acute problem of delay which ultimately affects the right of the litigant to access to justice and the speedy trial. Arrears are mounting because of such delay and dilatory tactics and asking repeated adjournments by the advocates and mechanically and in routine manner granted by the courts. It cannot be disputed that due to delay in access to justice and not getting the timely justice it may shaken the trust and confidence of the litigants in the justice delivery system. Many a times, the task of adjournments is used to kill Justice. Repeated adjournments break the back of the litigants. The courts are enjoying upon to perform their duties with the object of strengthening the confidence of common man in the institution entrusted with the administration of the justice. Any effort which weakens the system and shake the faith of the common man in the justice dispensation has to be discouraged. Therefore the courts shall not grant the adjournments in routine manner and mechanically and shall not be a party to cause for delay in dispensing the justice. Any effort which weakens the system and shake the faith of the common man in the justice dispensation has to be discouraged. Therefore the courts shall not grant the adjournments in routine manner and mechanically and shall not be a party to cause for delay in dispensing the justice. The courts have to be diligence and take timely action in order to usher in efficient justice dispensation system and maintain faith in rule of law. 10. We are also aware that whenever the trial courts refused to grant unnecessary adjournments many a times they are accused of being strict and they may face displeasure of the Bar. However, the judicial officers shall not worry about that if his conscience is clear and the judicial officer has to bear in mind his duties to the litigants who are before the courts and who have come for justice and for whom Courts are meant and all efforts shall be made by the courts to provide timely justice to the litigants. 11. Take an example of the present case. Suit was for eviction. Many a times the suits are filed for eviction on the ground of bonafide requirements of the landlord. If plaintiff who seeks eviction decree on the ground of personal bonafide requirement is not getting the timely justice and he ultimately gets the decree after 10 to 15 years, at times cause for getting the eviction decree on the ground of personal bonafide requirement may be defeated. The resultant effect would be that such a litigant would lose confidence in the justice delivery system and instead of filing civil suit and following the law he may adopt the other mode which has no backing of law and ultimately it affects the rule of law. Therefore, the court shall be very slow in granting adjournments and as observed hereinabove they shall not grant repeated adjournments in routine manner. 12. Time has now come to change the work culture and get out of the adjournment culture so that confidence and trust put by the litigants in the Justice delivery system is not shaken and Rule of Law is maintained. 9. No doubt, an accused has a right to a fair trial. Similarly, right to lead defence evidence is a valuable right available to the petitioner/accused. 9. No doubt, an accused has a right to a fair trial. Similarly, right to lead defence evidence is a valuable right available to the petitioner/accused. However, from the facts narrated herein above, it is clearly evident that in the case at hand, the sole motive of the petitioner/accused seems to be that of delaying the proceedings. The petitioner/accused has been grossly negligent in leading defence evidence. The conduct of the petitioner/accused in the case at hand is one of subverting the justice and not sub-serving the cause of justice. 10. Remedy available under the Negotiable Instruments Act to the complainant/respondent, in the case at hand, is a speedy efficacious remedy. However, dilatory tactics on the part of the petitioner/accused have unnecessarily delayed adjudication of the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant. 11. In view of the above facts and attending circumstances of the case narrated herein above, I see no reason to interfere with impugned order dated 21.12.2024, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dalhousie, District Kangra, in Case NIA Act No.42 of 2023, whereby the defence of the present petitioner/accused has been closed. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed, so also, pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.