BALDEV SINGH Vs. DIWAN CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing the order dtd. 15/10/2022, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P. vide which the right to lead evidence was closed. It has been asserted that the respondent had filed a complaint against the petitioner for the commission of an offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner was permitted to lead the defence evidence. The petitioner filed a list of defence witnesses and also deposited the diet money of the witnesses on 30/4/2022. Learned Trial Court did not issue the summons to the witnesses and wrongly closed the evidence by the order of the Court. Learned Trial Court erred in holding that adjournment was not justified as several opportunities had been availed by the petitioner. The order does not mention the number of opportunities taken by the petitioner. The whole case of the petitioner has been materially prejudiced. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the order dtd. 15/10/2022, passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside.

(2.) I have heard Mr. G.R. Palsra, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Dibender Ghosh, learned Counsel for the respondent.

(3.) Mr. G.R. Palsra, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Trial Court erred in closing the defence evidence. Adequate opportunity was not granted to the petitioner to lead defence evidence. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the order passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside.