RAM NIWAS Vs. MANISH JHALANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal misc. petition under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner against the order dt. 20.05.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 3, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the revisional court') in Criminal Revision No. 10/2014, whereby the revision petition has been dismissed. The petitioner has also challenged the order dt. 11.12.2013 passed by the Additional Metropolitan Magistrate No. 9, Jodhpur Metropolitan (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Criminal Case No. 2069/2013, whereby the application filed on behalf of the petitioner to give him an opportunity to produce himself as a witness in proceedings under Sec. 138 Negotiable Instrument Act, has been rejected. Brief facts of the case are that the proceedings under Sec. 138 Negotiable Instrument Act are pending against the petitioner before the trial Court, wherein the prosecution evidence was completed on 03.08.2013 and the petitioner sought and was granted opportunity to produce his defence evidence and the matter was fixed on 31.08.2013. On 31.08.2013, the petitioner had again sought opportunity to produce his defence evidence and the matter was fixed on 20.09.2013. On that date also, the petitioner had failed to produce any evidence, therefore, further opportunity was-granted to him and the matter was fixed on 03.10.2013. However, on 03.10.2013, the petitioner had failed to produce any evidence before the trial Court and, therefore, the trial Court has closed the opportunity of the petitioner to produce the defence evidence and the matter was fixed for final arguments.

(2.) On two subsequent dates i.e. 26.10.2013 and 11.11.2013, the matter was adjourned at the request of learned counsel for the petitioner before the trial Court and the next date was fixed as 11.12.2013. On 11.12.2013, learned counsel for the petitioner had moved an application with a prayer that he may be allowed to give his evidence and that application of the petitioner was rejected by the trial Court while observing that once the opportunity of producing defence evidence of the petitioner was closed by it on 03.10.2013, no further opportunity can be granted. The trial Court also observed that the petitioner has filed an application while claiming that he wants to exhibit some documents, which were not in his possession on the date when the trial Court had passed the order for closing the defence evidence, however, the said statement of the petitioner is not correct as those documents were available with the petitioner since 29.07.2013.

(3.) The impugned order passed by the trial Court on 11.12.2013 was challenged by the petitioner before the revisional Court, however, the revisional Court, while taking into consideration the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner, has rejected the same and affirmed the order passed by the trial Court.