CRMP/2504/2026 of DILIP YADAV Vs JAI BALAJI TRADERS on 23 September 2026

1. Petitioner has filed this present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, challenging the order dated 29.06.2026, passed in Criminal Revision No. 31 of 2025, whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Durg, District Durg dismissed the revision petition filed by petitioner affirming the order dated 07.11.2023 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, in BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN

Complaint Case No. 4226 of 2021, whereby right of petitioner to lead defence evidence was closed.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class of closing the right of petitioner to lead defence witness, which was subsequently affirmed by learned Additional Sessions Judge in revision, is bad in law and erroneous. He further submits that, vide order dated 23.09.2023, learned Sessions Judge, in revision earlier, granted petitioner a last opportunity to lead defence evidence. Pursuant to the said order, on 18.10.2023, the petitioner was given an opportunity to examine his witness. However, due to a dispute between the counsel, witness could not be examined and next date was given for leading defence evidence. He next contended that on 30.10.2023, petitioner examined himself as a defence witness, and the matter was thereafter fixed for defence evidence on 07.11.2023. He submits that on 07.11.2023, petitioner moved an application seeking time on the ground, that the defence witness, he wanted to examine could not appear before the Court due to the death of his father-in-law and prayer was made for granting further time to lead defence evidence, which was not allowed, and his right to lead entire defence evidence was closed. He further submits that both the Courts below failed to consider the fact that non- appearance of proposed defence witness was due to death of his close relative, which was beyond the control of petitioner. It is submitted that petitioner had a genuine and bona fide reason for seeking an adjournment and it was not with malafide or to delay the proceedings. Therefore, he prays that petitioner may be granted one last opportunity to produce and examine the proposed defence witness.

3. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and perused the documents placed on record.

4. Perusal of order of revisional Court shows that complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was filed on 22.09.2014. Petitioner appeared before the Court on 25.07.2016. After complainant’s statement was recorded, petitioner remained absent and an arrest warrant was issued on 21.10.2019. Petitioner surrendered before the Court and was released on bail on 23.10.2019. Thereafter, case was fixed for defence evidence on 04.02.2020. However, petitioner neither appeared nor led any defence evidence on several dates, therefore, an arrest warrant was again issued on 23.09.2021, and petitioner was declared an absconder on 09.03.2022.

5. The order of the Revisional Court further records that petitioner appeared on 18.10.2022 and was again released on bail. Case was thereafter fixed for defence evidence and he was directed to keep all his listed witnesses present. However, on the date fixed, neither petitioner nor his witnesses appeared before the Court, therefore, his right to lead defence evidence was closed and case was fixed for arguments. Thereafter, petitioner remained absent during the stage of arguments. Despite his absence, on 14.03.2023, he was given an opportunity to appear before the Court. However, he failed to appear even thereafter. Consequently, an arrest warrant was issued against him, and he was declared absconding on 21.06.2023.

6. Order of revisional Court further records that, on 27.07.2023, case was restored and petitioner was again released on bail. Thereafter, vide order dated 23.09.2023, the learned Revisional Court granted the petitioner a last opportunity to lead defence evidence, making it clear that no further opportunity would be granted. Pursuant to the said order, petitioner was given last opportunity to examine his defence witness on 18.10.2023. However, for some reason, the matter was adjourned to 30.10.2023, on which date petitioner examined himself as a defence witness. Thereafter, case was fixed for defence evidence on 07.11.2023. On that date, petitioner moved an application seeking time on the ground that his proposed defence witness could not appear due to death of his father-in-law.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that complaint was filed U/s. 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act in the year 2014 and after service of notice, on several occassions, petitioner remained absent before the Court and many time arrest warrant was issued against him and he was also declared absconder even in the stage of recording of defence witness. Petitioner intended to examine four witnesses in his defence however, on 07.11.2023, he submitted that one of his witnesses, namely Ghanshyam, could not appear before the Court due to the death of his father-in-law and, on that ground, sought another date for leading defence evidence. Petitioner was aware that he had been granted the last opportunity to lead his defence evidence and that no further opportunity would be granted. Despite this, petitioner has not produced the other defence witness on the date fixed. Petitioner failed to utilise the last opportunity granted to him for leading his defence evidence. Repeated failure to produce the proposed defence witnesses, despite sufficient opportunities, shows that petitioner is not taking effective steps and interest to conclude the trial pending since 2014 and granting any further opportunity would only result in further delay in the proceedings. Earlier petitioner had not appeared and cooperated in proceeding and therefore on two occasions arrest warrant was issued by Court for causing his presence.

8. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any error or illegality in the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, which was subsequently affirmed by the learned revisional Court. Accordingly, present petition is devoid of merit, which is liable to be and it is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram