In a revision under Section 138 NI Act regarding denial of petitioner's right to lead evidence, the High Court dismissed the petition. It held the petitioner failed to abide by court directions due to deliberate conduct, thereby forfeiting entitlement to further relief.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRMP No. 226 of 2019
---- Petitioner
Versus
---- Respondent
For Petitioner : Shri H.B. Agrawal, Sr. Adv. With Ms. Preeti Yadav, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri
Order On Board
22/01/2019
2
12.09.2017 under Section 138 of the Act, 1881 and the complainant adduced its evidence and closed its evidence on 25.01.2018. Thereafter, it was fixed for defense evidence on 08.02.2018. On 11.07.2018 the accused statement was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and on that date it was disclosed that the petitioner only wanted to examine himself and thereafter, the case was fixed for 02.08.2018. Thereafter, three dates passed i.e. 02.08.2018, 14.08.2018 and 07.09.2018 and on 07.09.2018 last chance was given again to the petitioner for evidence and date was of 25.09.2018. On 25.09.2018, the petitioner got himself examined, thereafter prayer was made that the Bank Manager of the Axis Bank, Chandrashekharpur Bhuneshvar may be called for evidence, despite the opposition by the complainant the same was allowed. The order would show that last chance was given on 26.10.2018 and direction was given that humdast notice should be issued for appearance which was to be served through the Superintendent of Police, Bhuvneshwar. The petitioner instead of getting serve the humdast through Superintendent of Police, Bhuvneshwar, of his own accord, sent it by registered post, eventually the witness did not appear on the date. Therefore, there appears that deliberate efforts were made for adjournment on some pretext or the other, which cannot be said to be bonafide. In all it appears that six dates were availed by the petitioner for his defence after closure of the case of the complainant up till 26.10.2018. Under the circumstances, considering the conduct of the petitioner, I am not inclined to interfere with the order.
Sd/-
Goutam Bhaduri Judge
Ashu
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order refusing the petitioner's application to lead evidence due to non-compliance with procedural directions warrants interference by the revisional court.
Whether the petitioner's conduct in availing multiple adjournments and failing to serve notices as directed precludes relief.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Prashant Kumar Biswal
Smt. Renu Agrawal
Goutam Bhaduri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
