KULDIP KEDIA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application challenging an order dated 21.1.2020 passed by the Learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta in Criminal Revision No. 300 of 2019, thereby affirming the order dated 19th October, 2019 passed by the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 12th Court, Calcutta in Complaint Case No. C/677/2011 under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.

(2.) Learned Counsel appearing for the accused-petitioner submits as follows. In the course of trial, an opportunity was given by the learned Trial Court on 17.08.2018 to the accused-petitioner to adduce defence evidence. However, since the same was not availed of by the petitioner, the Learned Trial Court closed his evidence on 30.08.2018. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a revisional application before the Learned Sessions Court. The same was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the Learned Trial Court. The learned Trial Court thereafter gave three (3) opportunities to the petitioner to adduce defence evidence but due to some unforeseen difficulties the same could not be done by the petitioner and the evidence was closed. The petitioner was constrained to file an application under Section 311 to examine the accused as witness. This was turned down by the Learned Trial Court. When it comes to question of evidence to be adduced by the defence, it is of utmost importance for the sake of the liberty of an individual and the same cannot be denied because of a few adjournments or a little delay in course of the proceeding. The petitioner wanted to produce a document pertaining to a family settlement that could show that the petitioner was not really in charge of the business at the material point of time. The petitioner might, in the process, bring further materials into light. A single day's opportunity may be granted to adduce defence evidence.

(3.) Learned Counsel appearing for the complainant-opposite party submits as follows. Several opportunities were given to the accused-petitioner to adduce defence evidence, yet he has failed to do so. He has tried to drag the proceeding on some pretext or the other so that the ultimate goal of seeking justice may be defeated. The document that the petitioner now wants to prove is not at all relevant to the present proceeding. The opposite party is not a family member of the petitioner. What private arrangement the petitioner and his family members had entered into between themselves regarding their business is not at all relevant in the present proceeding. So, even on merits the application under Section 311 of the Code cannot be entertained.