2022 (6) TMI 298 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - sufficient opportunity to adduce defence evidence provided or not - right to fair trial - HELD THAT - Undoubtedly, an accused should be given adequate opportunity for his defence. Denial of opportunity to adduce evidence would definitely go against the spirit of free trial. In the instant case, it cannot be said that the court did not give any opportunity to the petitioner to adduce any evidence, 06.10.2021 was the first date fixed for defence evidence. On that date, the petitioner did not appear. He was represented by his counsel, who sought adjournment and exemption from his personal appearance, which was allowed. In the instant case, on 29.10.2021, the petitioner did not appear personally. He did not adduce any evidence in his defence and even he did not seek any adjournment. The court, in fact, did not have any reason to adjourn the proceeding at the same stage. The court closed the opportunity of adducing defence evidence by the petitioner and proceeded ahead. It cannot be said that the impugned order is against any provision of law. It cannot be said that the petitioner did not get opportunity to adduce evidence in defence. Opportunity does not mean that it may be unguided. An accused does not have unrestricted rights to adduce evidence as and when he requires. As stated, in the instant case, opportunity to adduce defence evidence was granted to the petitioner - The petitioner did not apply to the court seeking permission to adduce defence evidence on that date. Even thereafter, again, the petitioner moved another application to get himself examined, which was rejected by the court on 1611.2021 on the ground that the opportunity to adduce defence evidence has already been closed on 29.10.2021. The petitioner would have assigned the reasons for not adducing evidence on 29.10.2021 for consideration of the court below, which the petitioner did not choose. Even it has not been stated before the court as to why the evidence was not adduced on 29.10.2021. Criminal trial cannot be delayed without any reason. This Court is of the view that there is no reason to make any interference and the petition deserves to be dismissed at the admission stage itself - Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to orders dated 29.10.2021 and 06.12.2021 in a complaint case and a criminal revision case.

Analysis:
1. The petition challenges two orders: one from a complaint case and the other from a criminal revision case. The complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was filed by the complainant against the petitioner. The petitioner had the opportunity to adduce defense evidence, but failed to do so on multiple occasions, leading to the closure of the defense evidence opportunity. The petitioner argued for the right to a fair trial, emphasizing the importance of being given a chance to present defense evidence.

2. The petitioner cited the case of Mrs. Kalyani Baskar v. Mrs. M.S. Sampooranam to support the contention that denying the opportunity to adduce evidence hampers the right to a fair trial. The Supreme Court in the mentioned case highlighted the importance of allowing the accused to present evidence to prove innocence, stating that denial of this right equates to a denial of a fair trial.

3. The court acknowledged the principle that an accused should be given adequate opportunity for their defense. However, it noted that adjournments should not be granted indiscriminately, as highlighted in the case of Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab, where the Supreme Court criticized the practice of granting adjournments without valid reasons. In the present case, the petitioner failed to appear or adduce evidence on the specified dates, leading to the closure of the defense evidence opportunity.

4. The court emphasized that the petitioner was granted an opportunity to adduce defense evidence on multiple occasions but failed to do so without valid reasons. Despite subsequent attempts for adjournments, the court maintained that the opportunity had already been closed, and delaying the trial without valid reasons was unwarranted. The court concluded that there was no basis for interference, and the petition was dismissed at the admission stage itself.