KURESHI IMRAN ALIMOHAMMAD Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Advocate Mr. Raj H.Jobanputra for the applicant submitted that the applicant, accused in the proceeding under Sec. 138 of the N.I. Act, is challenging the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamkhambhalia dtd. 21/4/2023 as well as the order dtd. 15/5/2023 of the Additional Sessions Judge, where the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate came to be confirmed, who had rejected the application of the applicant being Exhibits-67, 71 and 73, where Exh.67 was moved with a prayer to reopen the right of cross-examination on 1/4/2023; Exh.71 was moved with a prayer for amendment dtd. 15/4/2023, and Exh.73 was moved with prayer to fix a date for cross-examination.

(2.) Advocate Mr. Jobanputra submitted that Criminal Case No.30 of 2020 was filed on 7/1/2020 under Sec. 138 of the N.I. Act, and due to pandemic and outspread of Covid-19 in 2020, as per the guidelines of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the physical functioning of the Court was restricted; however, during that period, non- bailable warrant was issued against the present applicant, and when he came to know about the warrant, he approached the Advocate, who instructed him to remain present before the Court.

(3.) The procedural laws are for the convenience of the courts and the parties. The right to examine a witness is a substantial right as it is only after the cross-examination, the facts can be brought on record and truth can be elucidated. The trial proceeding is a cumulative process of search for truth, where participation of all concern are important. Since right to cross-examine is a valuable right, a case cannot be closed denying cross-examination of the complainant by the accused, particularly on the ground that the accused has not deposited an interim compensation amount.