TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (3) TMI 1334
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2. The petitioner impugns order dated 14.12.2017, whereby, the Revisional Court has allowed the revision petition filed by the petitioner subject to certain conditions. 3. The petitioner is an accused in a case filed by the respondent under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. The petitioner impugned order dated 27.07.2017 of the Trial Court closing the right of the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses of the respondent. 4. The Trial Court was of the view that the petitioner had been given sufficient time to cross-examine the witnesses, however, the petitioner was delaying the proceedings. The petitioner was insisting on production of the records prior to the continuance with the cross-examination. The Trial Court wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Court shall be at liberty to decide the relevancy of the proposed questions which are to be put to CW1. If, Ld. Trial Court opines that any of the proposed question is not relevant, then petitioner shall be having liberty to record his objections for the same and after recording the same, Ld. Trial Court may proceed ahead accordingly as per rules and procedures. (iv) Petitioner shall be having liberty to place on record documents, however, such document should be relevant subject to the merit of the case and such relevancy shall be subject to the decision of the Trial as the case may be." 6. The Trial Court, by its order dated 27.07.2017, noted as under:- " ***** ***** ***** Perusal of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... further opportunity to the accused. Hence, right of the accused to further cross-examination of complainant witness Mr. Manoj Kumar is hereby closed. It is submitted that there is another witness to produced by the complainant. Evidence of witness Laxman Kumar is recorded as CW2. Cross-examination of CW2 deferred on request. Matter be adjourned for RCE as last opportunity on 22.09.2017." 7. The Revisional Court, by the impugned order dated 14.12.2017, directed as under:- "9. Thus, with these submissions of respondent, the plea raised by the petitioner's case by itself that he may be allowed to bring on record the entire arbitral record and the concerned witness be summoned, accordingly, is not tenable in the eyes of law. Pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly on the basis of the technicalities. The petitioner in the present case is arguing in person and he claims to be having knowledge of the law. Whatever the case may be, he should be equated with the counsel and presumed to be having knowledge of the entire procedure of law. So far as the submissions of the petitioner that he should be allowed to bring on record the arbitration proceedings by the Ld. Trial Court, I do not find any infirmity In the impugned order to this extent as it has been rightly observed that such plea taken by the petitioner is nothing but his defence for which he would be having an opportunity at the time of his defence evidence. 12. Above all, whatever submissions made by the petitioner may be, they can only be al....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s the services of a counsel to represent him in the present matter. He has been apprised of the same. He has also been apprised that in case, he was not in a position to engage a private counsel, he can approach DLSA (Central) for engaging a Legal Aid counsel, if found eligible as per Rules." 10. Perusal of the orders of the Trial Court as well as the Revisional Court makes it clear that the petitioner, who is appearing in person, has been repeating questions, which the Court has found to be irrelevant. The Court seems to be kept engaged for substantial periods of time in dealing with the questions which the Court is of the view are irrelevant. 11. The other issue being raised by the petitioner is production of the arbitral record, wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on of CW1 on one date is concerned, in my view, the direction is onerous. 18. Keeping in view of the volume of the documents on which cross-examination has to be conducted, it may not be possible for the petitioner to conclude the cross-examination on one date. Further, exigencies of the Court and availability of time with the Court has to be kept in mind. 19. Accordingly, it is directed that in case the petitioner is not in a position to conclude his cross-examination on one date, for any valid reason, it would be in the discretion of the Trial Court to grant further time to the petitioner to continue his cross-examination of CW1. 20. With regard to the direction to the Petitioner to prepare his questions in advance, the petitione....