SOM NATH SAPRA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It appears that Shri S.N. Dhingra, Addl. Sessions Judge has scant regard for the judgments of this Court and sticks to the procedure of trial of complaint cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act invented by him and not the one prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Vide impugned order dated 1.5.2003, the learned ASJ has after recording the statement of the complainant put the evidence of issuance of cheque by the petitioner against the liability towards complainant and dishonouring of the same and after eliciting the statement of the petitioner that he had no liability towards complainant as the cheque was obtained forcibly from him and in this regard he has made a complaint to the SHO, straightaway called upon the accused to produce his evidence in defence taking the case of the complainant having been proved without trial.

(2.) The illegality, harshness and judicial tyranny is writ large on the impugned order as the learned ASJ imposed a cost of Rs. 15,000/- upon the petitioner-accused for not producing the evidence in his defence on the first date of hearing by ignoring the fact that the counsel for the accused had made an application that he wanted to call Dealing Clerk of Registrar High Court Delhi and Record Keeper of Police Station, Chitranjan Park by observing that such an application should have been made well in time.

(3.) This Court vide judgment dated 17.1.2003 in Crl.Revision Nos. 593/2002 and 594/2002, set aside the order passed by Sh. S.N. Dhingra, learned ASJ calling upon the accused to straight away produce the defence evidence on entering his plea of non guilty, by holding that this procedure was wholly illegal and against the mandatory procedure of trial with the following observations: -