CRLMC/3167/2026 of DEBASHIS SAHOO Vs ASITA NANDA BISWAL on 8 September 2026

ORDER

08.09.2026 Order No.

01.

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner. Perused the CRLMC application filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 as well as the prayer made therein.

3. By filing the present CRLMC application, the Accused- Petitioner in 1CC No.10 of 2024, pending in the court of the learned J.M.F.C., Jajpur Road, has approached this Court with a prayer for set aside the impugned order dated 20.08.2026 at Anneuxre-1 to the application.

4. By virtue of the impugned order dated 20.08.2026 at Annexure-1, the learned trial court has rejected the time petition filed on behalf of the Accused-Petitioner while the cross- examination of the witness from the Complainant side is going on and, accordingly, the witness from the Complainant side has been discharged thereby denying the right of the Accused-Petitioner to cross-examine the Complainant. Being aggrieved by such order, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present CRLMC application.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, contended that the present proceeding arises out of a complaint filed under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. He further submitted that while the complaint case was pending before the learned J.M.F.C., Jajpur Road, the accused was being represented by his conducting counsel. Further, referring to the order sheets, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the counsel for the Petitioner was present on 21.02.2026, 07.03.2026, 04.04.2026, 24.04.2026, 13.05.2026, 19.06.2026 and 18.07.2026. On all the aforesaid dates, the counsel for the Accused-Petitioner was present and filed Hazira whereas the counsel for the Opposite-Complainant took time on all the aforesaid dates. When the matter was posted on 12.08.2026, counsel for the Complainant-Opposite Party filed a Hazira and a time petition was filed on behalf of the Accused-Petitioner seeking time for cross- examination.

6. At this stage, it is stated by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that such time petition was filed on the ground of illness of the counsel for the Accused-Petitioner. Accordingly, the matter was posted on 20.08.2026, on which date, the P.W.1, namely, Asita Nanda Biswal was examined from the Complainant’s side. A time petition was filed on behalf of the Petitioner seeking time on the ground of illness of the concerned Advocate, however, the learned trial court has rejected the time petition and discharged P.W.1 with a further observation that the Accused-Petitioner shall not be granted opportunity for further cross-examination in future. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, the Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer to set aside the order dated 20.08.2026. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at this juncture, contended that although the Accused- Petitioner was represented by his conducting counsel on the dates mentioned hereinabove, the Complainant-Opposite Party took time on all those dates. He further submitted that due to illness, the counsel for the Accused-Petitioner could not remain present on 12.08.2026 and 20.08.2026. Accordingly, the time petition was moved. However, such time petition has been illegally rejected by the learned trial court and the Accused-Petitioner has been denied the right of cross-examination of the P.W.1, who is a material witness.

6. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, further considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner and on a close scrutiny of the entire order sheets filed under Annexure-1, this Court found that the counsel for the Accused-Petitioner was present on previous several occasions and it is only two days’ time petition was moved on behalf of the Accused-Petitioner seeking time to cross-examine the P.W.1. Although it is the duty of the Accused- Petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses immediately, however the same could not be done due to the illness of the counsel for the Accused-Petitioner, as submitted by the counsel for the Petitioner. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, this Court is of the view that in the event the Accused-Petitioner is denied an opportunity to cross- examine the P.W.1, the same would seriously prejudice him and would not be in the interest of a just trial in the present case. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is inclined to grant another opportunity to the Accused-Petitioner.

7. Accordingly, the order dated 20.08.2026, at Annexure-1, is hereby set aside, subject to the Petitioner paying cost of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) to the Complainant in the court below. It is further directed that P.W.1 be recalled for cross-examination on a particular date and on that date the Accused-Petitioner shall finish the cross-examination and P.W.1 be discharged on the very same day.

8. Since this CRLMC application is being disposed of at the stage of admission without the Opposite Party being noticed, liberty is granted to the Opposite Party to seek variation/modification of this order in the event it is found that the Petitioner has either misled this Court in any manner or supressed any material facts.

9. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the CRLMC stands disposed of.

( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra )

Judge

Debasis

Digitally Signed Signed by: DEBASIS AECH Designation: SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 11-Sep-2026 15:09:35 Signature Not Verified