AMARJIT MALHOTRA Vs. BRIJANDAR SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition filed under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner/accused has assailed order dtd. 29/10/2021, passed by the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (1), Amb, District Una, H.P., in terms whereof, the right of the accused to lead defence evidence, after the complainant was provided an opportunity to lead additional evidence, has been closed, inter alia, on the ground that despite reasonable opportunities having been granted, the petitioner/accused has failed to adduce evidence. Learned Court below also held that by seeking repeated opportunities for examining defence witnesses and not taking appropriate steps to ensure the presence of the witnesses, the accused intended to delay the disposal of the case, which was already more than 12 years old.

(2.) Mr. Kuthiala, learned Senior Counsel, while taking the Court through the impugned order, has argued that a perusal of the order passed demonstrates that Dealing Officer of the Income Tax Department, to whom summons were issued and who was called by the accused as his witness, was duly served, but the summons were sent back as un-executed for want of PAN number of the complainant. He submitted that as the petitioner/accused had performed his part as far as summoning of the witness was concerned, learned Court below erred in closing the defence evidence of the petitioner/accused and the petitioner/accused has been made to suffer for no fault of his.

(3.) Opposing the petition, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent/complainant submitted that the summons which were issued to the Dealing Officer of the Income Tax Department were received back un-executed for want of PAN number of the complainant, which demonstrates that the particulars that were provided by the petitioner/accused were incomplete and the intention of petitioner is apparent that it was also a step so as to delay the adjudication of the complaint, which at the time of passing of the order by the learned Trial Court itself was more than a decade old.