ANNASAHEB SUKHDEO MASKE Vs. SHASHIKANT DNYANESHWAR POTDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Applicant has challenged the order dtd. 14/7/2023 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pandharpur below Exhibit-151 in STC No.402/2013. Learned Magistrate had directed closure of the defence evidence. The Applicant, who is the original accused, made an application for setting aside that order and permitting him to lead defence evidence. That application was rejected by the impugned order. The Applicant is the original accused in the prosecution under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The case is launched for dishonor of two cheques of Rs.4,50,000.00 and Rs.30,000.00 each. The complaint was filed in the year 2013 and it is pending since then. The Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pandharpur vide his order dtd. 17/1/2023 observed that the accused and his Advocate were absent though called repeatedly. No application was filed on record. Considering the overall situation, learned Magistrate directed that the evidence from the accused side would be treated as closed. The Applicant-accused then made an application for setting aside that order. Said order of closing the evidence was passed on 17/1/2023 and this application was filed on 12/7/2023. Thus, even at this stage no urgency was shown by the Applicant. After the evidence was closed, the matter was posted for arguments and thereafter ten dates were given for the arguments. For ten dates, the Applicant did not make any application for setting aside the order of closure of evidence. Thus, it was clear that the Applicant was trying to prolong the matter.

(2.) Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that one last chance may be given to the Applicant to lead defence evidence in the interest of justice.

(3.) After perusing the impugned order, I do not really find fault with the order of the learned Magistrate. It is clear that the Applicant has been prolonging the matter without sufficient cause. However, as learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that he wants only one chance to lead defence evidence and the trial can be made time bound, this request will have to be considered after hearing the complainant in this application. At the same time, it cannot be ignored that the trial is pending for about ten years. Therefore, the complainant will have to be compensated for this delay without prejudice to his rights in the trial Court. Therefore, only in the interest of justice to maintain the balance, some heavy cost will have to be imposed on the Applicant before the complainant is heard.