Anil Mathur Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.2385/2014 Anil Mathur S/o Shri Shyam Swaroop Mathur R/o 4/22, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur.

¶3

----Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

State Of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor. 2. Smt. Leena Jethwani W/o Shri Mahesh Jethwani, aged about 30 years, R/o House No.19, Jai Ganesh Colony, Jaisinghpura Khor, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶6

----Respondent

¶7

For Petitioner(s) : None present For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Singh Dhakar, PP Mr. Yatharth Agarwal for Mr. Sudhir Jain

¶8

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order

¶9

16/04/2026

¶10

By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 10.12.2013 passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan, by which the application submitted by the petitioner seeking an opportunity to lead evidence has been rejected.

¶11

Aggrieved by the aforesaid, a revision petition was submitted before the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge No.4, Jaipur Metropolitan. However, the same was also rejected vide impugned order dated 12.04.2014.

¶12

Perusal of the record indicates that the petitioner is facing trial for the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC. After conclusion of evidence of the prosecution, statements of the

¶13

[CRLMP-2385/2014]

¶14

(2 of 3)

¶15

accused petitioner were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and thereafter, the case was posted for leading the defence evidence. It appears that the petitioner could not avail the said opportunity and his evidence was closed. Thereafter, an application was submitted on 09.11.2013 for producing two witnesses in defence. The aforesaid application has been rejected by the Court below on the ground that sufficient opportunities were granted, but the petitioner had failed to avail the same and accordingly, the application was rejected.

¶16

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant oppose the prayer and submit that in-spite of getting several opportunities the petitioner has failed to avail the same, hence the Courts below have not committed any error in rejecting the prayer of producing defence evidence by passing the orders impugned, hence, interference of this Court is not warranted and the present misc. petition is liable to be rejected.

¶17

Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record.

¶18

Perusal of the record indicates that the petitioner is facing trial for the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC. When the trial proceeded against the petitioner and when the evidence of the prosecution was closed, the statements of the petitioner under 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded and thereafter, some dates were posted for recording the evidence of the defence, but the defence evidence was not produced by the petitioner on the said dates, hence, his evidence was closed. On the next date, he submitted an application for reopening the same and allowing him to produce

¶19

[CRLMP-2385/2014]

¶20

(3 of 3)

¶21

two witnesses, but this time his prayer was not entertained and no opportunity was granted to him.

¶22

This fact is not in dispute that the petitioner was having a casual approach towards the proceedings pending against him and that is why, he has failed to produce evidence in his defence and hence, no opportunity was granted to him to lead the same, but this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that unless and until an opportunity is granted to the petitioner for leading his evidence, he would not be in a position to put his defence and his right of fair trial would be violated as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶23

Hence, this Court deems it just and proper to grant one last and final opportunity to the petitioner to lead his defence evidence on the next date before the Trial Court. 9. The petitioner is directed to appear before the Trial Court on 12.05.2026.

¶24

The Trial Court is directed to record his evidence on the said day and in case, due to paucity of time, the evidence is not recorded, then the same shall be done by fixing a next short date. 11. In case, the petitioner fails to put his defence evidence on the next date or on the postponed date, no further opportunity would be granted to the petitioner and the Trial Court would be at liberty to proceed with the matter strictly in accordance with law. 12. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the instant criminal misc. petition stands disposed of. The stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶25

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶26

KuD/40

Anil Mathur v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Mathur v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bheem Singh Meena Son of Shri Bijendra Singh Meena, Vs State of Rajasthan

Vaibhav Agarwal S/O Shri Mahendra Kumar Agarwal B/C Mahajan Vs State of Rajasthan

Pankaj Meena S/O Late Shri Madan Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Prakash Meena S/O Shri Harji Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

Govind Gurjar S/O Shri Ramkawar Vs State of Rajasthan

Ms Surbhi Awasthi Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp.