9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 526X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... examination of P.W.1 and was called for the said purpose on 17.02.2014, the request for an adjournment was rejected. The Order Sheet does not mention as to why adjournment was refused / rejected. It can be noticed that prior to that no adjournment for further cross examination of P.W.1 was sought for from the accused' side. As such, the very first request for an adjournment for further cross examination of P.W.1 by the accused was rejected by the Trial Court. In addition to this, the application filed by the accused on the very next date of hearing under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was also rejected on the very same day based upon the oral objection by the complainant - in the entire process of further cross examination of P.W.1, only a single adjournment was granted to the accused and further hearings were all with respect to filing of Section 311 Cr.P.C. application by the accused and rejection of the same by the Trial Court. Thus the accused was not given a reasonable opportunity to cross examine P.W.1. Since the accused has not been granted a reasonable opportunity to put forth her case including cross examining P.W.1, the impugned Judgment passed by the Trial Court which was f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pugned Judgment of conviction and Order on sentence, dated 31.12.2014 convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced her accordingly. 3. Aggrieved by the Judgment of the Trial Court, the accused preferred an appeal in the Court of learned VIII Addl. District Sessions Judge at Mysuru, Sitting at Hunsur (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Sessions Judge's Court') in Crl.A. No.9/2015. Learned Sessions Judge, by Judgment dated 06.10.2017 while confirming the Judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court, dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the accused has preferred the present revision petition. 4. The Trial Court and the Sessions Judge's Court records were called for and the same are placed before the Court. Perused the materials placed on record. 5. Respondent is being represented by his learned counsel. 6. Though this matter is listed for admission, however, with the consent of learned counsels from both side, the matter is taken up for its final disposal. 7. Heard arguments from both side. 8. The point that arises for my consideration is, whether the Judgment of conviction an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s examination of P.W.1 to the date 02.12.2013. On the said day, the accused had remained absent and the matter was adjourned to 29.01.2014. In the meantime, the case was transferred to a different Court. On 29.01.2014, P.W.1 was cross-examined in part. The matter was adjourned to 17.02.2014 for further cross examination of P.W.1. However, on the said day, further cross examination of P.W.1 was taken as 'nil' and the matter was posted for recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. On the very next date of hearing, an application was filed from the accused' side under Section 313 Cr.P.C. praying the Trial Court to recall P.W.1 for his further cross examination. The said application came to be rejected on the very same day by inviting the oral objection of the complainant and the matter was adjourned to 24.03.2014 for recording the statement of the accused. On 24.03.2014 the accused filed one more application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking permission to further cross examine P.W.1. The said application also came to be dismissed with a cost of ₹ 200/- on 06.08.2014. Thereafter on two dates of hearing since the accused remained absent, a non ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the accused and further hearings were all with respect to filing of Section 311 Cr.P.C. application by the accused and rejection of the same by the Trial Court. Thus the accused was not given a reasonable opportunity to cross examine P.W.1. 15. In addition to the above, even after the matter was posted for the defence evidence and the date was fixed for it as 12.11.2014, the request of the accused for an adjournment was rejected mentioning that no sufficient ground was made for adjournment and the defence evidence was taken as 'nil'. On the very same day, the arguments from the complainant's side was also heard and the matter was posted for defendant's arguments in the same month i.e. on 26.11.2014. On the said date also, rejecting the request made by the accused' side for an adjournment, the Court took the defendant's arguments as 'heard' and posted the matter for Judgment. However, for pronouncing the Judgment, the Court, on its own adjourned the matter twice. This clearly goes to show that the defendant was not even given a minimum accommodation in the form of short accommodation either to lead evidence from her side or to address arguments fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
