TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (11) TMI 756
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of CC Nos. 4994232/2016 and 4994233/2016 filed under Section 138 read with Sections 141/142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the NI Act'), vide which the revision petitions filed on behalf of the petitioners seeking permission to lead defence evidence were dismissed. The Sessions Court by passing the impugned orders has upheld the order dated 17.03.2018 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (NI Act)-04, Dwarka Courts, Delhi in the aforesaid criminal complaints, vide which the applications filed by the petitioners under Section 311 Cr.P.C. were dismissed and their right to lead defence evidence closed. The petitioners further seek directions for recalling of CW-1 (AR of the company) for further cro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....same. Once the defence evidence was closed, they filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking recall of CW-1 which came to be dismissed vide order dated 27.11.2017. The said order was not challenged by the petitioners before any Court. Another application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. was filed by the petitioners, seeking direction to the complainant to file original agreement dated 05.12.2012. The respondent/complainant did not deny the execution of the said agreement and resultantly the aforesaid application also came to be dismissed on 30.01.2018. While passing the said order, the Trial Court gave last opportunity to the petitioners to lead defence evidence. 4. The petitioners, despite dismissal of their earlier application filed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ons Court also came to the conclusion that the petitioners could not be permitted to fill lacuna in their case. It is these orders, which are under challenge in the present petitions. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that one opportunity may be granted to cross-examine CW-1 and to lead defence evidence. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has vehemently opposed the present petitions. He submits that the present petitions pertain to complaints filed in the year 2013 and for the last 6 years the trial was pending at the stage of defence evidence. It is submitted that final arguments were addressed on 05.05.2018, 26.07.2018 as well as on 22.10.2019 and the petitioners filed the second application....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... matter could not be proceeded with as exemption applications were filed on behalf of the petitioners. Insofar as the prayer seeking recall of CW-1 is concerned, it has been contended that the earlier counsel failed to cross-examine the said witness on the aspect of agreement dated 05.12.2012 and this error could be detected only when the present counsel took over. 11. As noted earlier, prior to cross-examination of CW-1 on 05.02.2015, the petitioners themselves placed on record a copy of agreement dated 05.12.2012. Admittedly, the respondent has not disputed the factum of execution of the aforesaid agreement. 12. Before proceeding to render an opinion on the facts of the case, I deem it apposite to recapitulate the scope of judicial ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cap; (ii) No finding could be recorded that the counsel appointed by the accused were incompetent particularly at the back of such counsel; (iii) Expeditious trial in a heinous offence as is alleged in the present case is in the interests of justice; (iv) The trial court as well as the High Court rejected the reasons for recall of the witnesses; (v) The Court has to keep in mind not only the need for giving fair opportunity to the accused but also the need for ensuring that the victim of the crime is not unduly harassed; (vi) Mere fact that the accused was in custody and that he will suffer by the delay could be no consideration for allowing recall of witnesses, particularly at the fag end of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ay. 15. Doubtless, the petitioners are guilty of delaying the trial, however, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that a fair trial is the hallmark of criminal procedure. It entails not only the rights of the victims but also the interest of the accused. It is the duty of every Court to ensure that fair and proper opportunities are granted to the accused for just decision of the case. In furtherance of the above, adducing of evidence by the accused in support of his defence is also a valuable right and allowing the same is in the interest of justice. 16. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that interest of justice would be served if the petitioners are allowed to lead defence evidence, subject to their examining the defence....