Fair opportunity to lead defence evidence upheld, but unexplained non-appearance justifies closing evidence to avoid trial delay.

An accused in a Section 138 NI Act complaint is entitled to a fair opportunity to lead defence evidence, but that right does not extend to indefinite delay of the trial. Where the petitioner was given an opportunity after recording of the Section 313 CrPC statement, obtained adjournment and exemption on the first date, and then failed to appear or seek adjournment on the next date, the trial court was justified in closing defence evidence. The High Court found no reason to keep the matter pending at the same stage and upheld the order, rejecting interference with the impugned orders.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order closing the opportunity to adduce defence evidence in the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was liable to be interfered with.

Analysis: The petitioner had been afforded an opportunity to lead defence evidence after the statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded. On the first date fixed, adjournment and exemption from personal appearance were allowed. On the next date, the petitioner neither appeared nor sought adjournment and adduced no defence evidence. The Court held that an accused is entitled to a fair opportunity, but that does not mean an unrestricted right to prolong the trial or seek adjournment without cause. In the circumstances, the trial court had no reason to keep the matter pending at the same stage.

Conclusion: The order closing defence evidence was upheld and no interference was called for.

Final Conclusion: The petition failed and the challenge to the impugned orders was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: An accused must be given a fair opportunity to lead defence evidence, but where such opportunity is granted and is not availed without seeking adjournment or showing cause, the court may validly close the opportunity to prevent delay in trial.

---