CRLMP/1974/2026 of RAHUL DAVE S/O SHRI SHIV KUMAR DAVE, Vs MR. RAFIQ MOHAMMAD S/O SHRI PEER MOHAMMAD , on 29 July 2026

Order

29/07/2026

1. The instant criminal misc. petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 06.12.2025 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate (NI Act Cases) No. 4, Ajmer, in Criminal Case No.14/2021, by which the application submitted by the accused- petitioner for leading defense evidence has been rejected.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is facing trial for the offense punishabel under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘NI Act’). Counsel submits that the petitioner remained in custody from 11.05.2022 to 10.12.2023 and thereafter from 11.12.2023 to 02.03.2024. Counsel submits that the petitioner was lodged in Central Jail, Ajmer and District Jail, Nainital, respectively, for the aforesaid

(2 of 5) [CRLMP-1974/2026] period. Counsel submits that after his release from the jail, an application was submitted by the petitioner under Section 91 Cr.P.C. for summoning certain documents, but the said application was rejected. Thereafter, the Presiding Officer remained on leave, and in the meantime, the defense evidence of the petitioner was closed. Counsel submits that important questions of law and facts are involved in the matter pending against the petitioner before the Court below. Counsel submits that unless and until a fair opportunity of producing the defense evidence is granted to the petitioner, he would not be in a position to put his defense in a proper way. Hence, in the interest of justice, one last and final opportunity be granted to the petitioner, subject to payment of some reasonable cost amount to the complainant.

3. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record.

4. Perusal of the record indicates that the petitioner is facing trial for the offense punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act on a complaint filed by the complainant-respondent against him in the year 2021. This fact is not in dispute that the petitioner remained in jail on two different occasions with effect from 11.05.2022 to 10.12.2023 and thereafter from 11.12.2023 to 02.03.2024. But this fact is also not in dispute that the statements of the petitioner were recorded on 19.05.2023 under Section 313 Cr.P.C., and thereafter, the case was posted for leading the defense evidence. Several opportunities were granted to the petitioner, but he failed to avail the same. Ultimately, his opportunity to produce the defense evidence was closed on 03.02.2025. Meaning thereby the petitioner has already availed

(3 of 5) [CRLMP-1974/2026] almost 19-20 months' time for producing the defense evidence, but he has failed to produce the same in this intervening time.

5. This fact is not in dispute that the petitioner was negligent in leading his own matter and failed to adduce his defense evidence. But at the same time, this fact cannot be overlooked that fair trial is a right of the accused, and it includes production of defense evidence. If last opportunity is not provided to the petitioner for the aforesaid purpose, his case would be prejudiced before the Trial Court in absence of his defense evidence.

6. Considering overall facts and circumstances of the case, one last and final opportunity is granted to the petitioner with the following terms and conditions:

(i) The petitioner would pay cost amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) to the complainant within a period of 15 days from today.

(ii) The petitioner would implant 25 shade bearing trees in public vicinity area within a period of 10 days from today, and would submit a photograph of the same with an undertaking before the trial court within a period of 15 days from today that he will take care of these plants until these plants get their proper shape and he would submit the actual photographs of trees at the end of every six months in every year till conclusion of the trial.

7. The reasons for passing this present order directing the petitioner to plant 25 shade bearing trees is in the interest of the public at large and for the greater public good. Planting trees as directed above, is one such initiative, which this Court considers to be appropriate, as trees, for as long as they thrive whether for

(4 of 5) [CRLMP-1974/2026] decades or centuries will continuously and silently offer numerous benefits to the city and the surrounding community. Future generations will benefit from a cleaner, fresh and oxygen-rich environment.

8. In case the petitioner complies with the above conditions put by this court within above stipulated time, one last and final opportunity would be granted to the petitioner by the trial court by fixing a short date after 15 days. On the said date, the petitioner would produce his defense evidence. In case, due to paucity of time, the defense evidence of the petitioner is not recorded, then the trial court would fix a further short date.

9. It is made clear that in case the petitioner fails to comply with either of the conditions within above stipulated time and failed to produce defense evidence within the time so fixed by the Trial Court, no further opportunity would be granted to the petitioner and the Trial Court would be at liberty to proceed with the matter in accordance with law.

10. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant criminal misc. petition stands disposed of. The stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

11. Before parting with this order, this Court feels it just and proper to said that the reason for passing this ex parte order without issuing notice to the complainant is to avoid further delay in disposal of the complaint submitted by him. In case, complainant feels aggrieved by this order, he would be at liberty to move appropriate application for recalling of this order by way of filing appropriate revival application.

(5 of 5) [CRLMP-1974/2026]

12. Looking to the fact that the trial is pending before the Trial Court since last more than five years, it is expected from the Trial Court to make all possible endeavors to decide the complaint expeditiously, as early as possible without entertaining any undue/unwarranted request made by either side seeking adjournment of the matter. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/168