2021 (7) TMI 526 - HC - Indian Laws

Accused Granted Fair Defense Opportunity in Section 138 Case | Remand Order Emphasizes Timely Trial

SMT. PARVATHI Versus SRI V.T. ANANTHAKUMAR

The High Court found that the accused was denied a fair opportunity to present her defense in a case involving an offense under Section 138 of the ... Dishonor of Cheque - insufficiency of funds - no reasonable opportunity was given to the accused to further cross examine P.W.1 and also to lead her evidence - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- On 12.11.2014, the request made by the accused' side for an adjournment was rejected and the defence evidence was taken as 'nil' and the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant was heard, the matter was posted for defendant's arguments on 26.11.2014. On 26.11.2014, the request made by the accused for an adjournment was rejected and defendant's arguments was also taken as 'heard' and the matter was posted for Judgment, to 10.12.2014. However, on 10.12.2014 and the next date of hearing which was 22.12.2014 the Court did not pronounce the Judgment and posting the matter to 31.12.2014, it proceeded to pass the impugned Judgment convicting the accused before it as guilty for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The recording of the proceedings in the Trial Court shows that though the matter was initially posted for further cross 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 further confirmed by the Sessions Judge's Court deserves to be set aside and the matter deserves to be remanded with a direction to the Trial Court to give a reasonable opportunity to the accused to further cross examine P.W.1 and to lead defene evidence if she opts so - Petition allowed by way of remand. Issues:1. Denial of reasonable opportunity to lead defense evidence.2. Legality of the judgments and the need for remand to Trial Court.Analysis:1. The petitioner was accused of an offense under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and was convicted by the Trial Court. The complainant alleged that the accused issued a cheque that bounced due to insufficient funds. The accused denied guilt but did not present any defense evidence. The Trial Court convicted the accused, which was upheld by the Sessions Judge. The petitioner contended that she was not given a fair opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and present her defense.2. The High Court analyzed the Trial Court proceedings and found that the accused was indeed denied a reasonable opportunity to present her case. The Court noted that the accused's requests for adjournments for cross-examination and defense evidence were consistently rejected. The Trial Court's refusal to grant adjournments and the subsequent denial of opportunities to lead evidence or present arguments were deemed unfair to the accused. The Sessions Judge's observation that the accused had opportunities to present defense evidence was found to be incorrect.3. The High Court held that while there should not be undue delays in justice, parties must be given a fair chance to present their case. Due to the denial of a reasonable opportunity to the accused, the Trial Court's judgment and the Sessions Judge's decision were set aside. The matter was remanded to the Trial Court with directions to provide the accused with an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and lead defense evidence if desired. Both parties were directed to appear before the Trial Court on a specified date to expedite the case's disposal within four months.4. The High Court's order allowed the petition, set aside the previous judgments, and remanded the case to the Trial Court for a fair hearing. The Court emphasized the importance of granting parties a reasonable opportunity to present their case and directed prompt disposal of the matter to avoid further delays in justice.