Fair trial in cheque dishonour cases may justify one final opportunity to cross-examine and lead defence evidence.

An accused seeking recall of the complainant for cross-examination and reopening of defence evidence in a Negotiable Instruments Act prosecution may be granted a limited final opportunity where fairness so requires. The Delhi HC balanced the accused's repeated absence and the delay already caused against the right to a fair trial and to adduce defence evidence, while keeping in view the limited scope of interference under Section 482 CrPC. It allowed one last opportunity, subject to strict conditions that defence evidence be completed on a single day and costs be paid, so that the indulgence would not further prolong the trial.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to one last opportunity to recall the complainant witness for cross-examination and to lead defence evidence in proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Analysis: The request for recall and reopening of defence evidence was considered in the context of the accused's repeated absence, the delay in the trial, and the limited scope of interference under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. At the same time, the right of an accused to a fair trial and to adduce defence evidence was recognized as a valuable component of criminal procedure. The Court balanced these competing considerations and found that, despite the delay caused by the petitioner, the interests of justice would be served by granting one final opportunity, subject to strict conditions that the defence evidence be led on a single day and costs be paid.

Conclusion: The petitioner was granted one last opportunity to lead defence evidence and to have the relevant witnesses cross-examined, subject to payment of costs and the condition that the opportunity would not be repeated.

Ratio Decidendi: Even where the accused has delayed the proceedings, a court may grant a limited final opportunity if necessary to secure a fair trial, provided the indulgence is structured to prevent further prejudice or protraction of the trial.

---