Delhi District Court
Omkara Industries vs R L Polymers Pvt Ltd on 11 September, 2025
DLND010071922025 Page 1 of 18
Cr Revision No. 504/2025
Omkara Industries
Vs.
R.L. Polymers Pvt. Ltd.
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-05
NEW DELHI DISTRICT : PATIALA HOUSE COURTS : NEW DELHI
Criminal Revision No. 504/2025
In the matter of :-
Omkara Industries
Through its Proprietor
Siddharth Rajput,
R/o Plot No. 61, Pocket-F, Sector-3,
Bawana DSIIDC Industrial Area,
New Delhi-110039
.....Revisionist/Accused
Versus
R.L. Polymers Pvt. Ltd.
Through its Director
Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Maurya
Regd. Office Address: WZ-247,
Ground Floor, Inderpuri,
Central Delhi-110012
.....Respondent/Complainant
CRIMINAL REVISION UNDER SECTION
Date of institution : 08.09.2025
Date when judgment reserved : 10.09.2025
Date of Judgment : 11.09.2025
DLND010071922025 Page 2 of 18
Cr Revision No. 504/2025
Omkara Industries
Vs.
R.L. Polymers Pvt. Ltd.
JUDGMENT
Introduction
1. The present revision petition has been filed under Section 397 Cr.P.C./438 BNSS challenging the order dated 29.08.2025 passed by Sh. Snehil Sharma, Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class (NI Act)-01, Patiala House Court, New Delhi in CC NI No.13483/2023. Through this impugned order, the learned Trial Court closed the right of cross-examination of the complainant, closed defence evidence, and imposed a cost of Rs.10,000/- upon the accused.
2. The revisionist seeks comprehensive relief including setting aside of the impugned order and complete waiver of the imposed cost, contending that the Trial Court committed grave errors in law and procedure while denying basic procedural rights that are essential for a fair trial. This Court has carefully examined the submissions of both parties to determine the validity of the grievances raised and the appropriateness of the relief sought. Factual Matrix and Procedural History
3. The respondent R.L. Polymers Pvt. Ltd. initiated proceedings against the revisionist Omkara Industries by filing a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 on 28.08.2023. The complaint arose from the alleged dishonour of a cheque which bounced on 07.04.2023, leading to the statutory notice and subsequent legal proceedings when the amount remained unpaid.
DLND010071922025 Page 3 of 18 Cr Revision No. 504/2025Omkara Industries Vs. R.L. Polymers Pvt. Ltd.
4. Timeline of Legal Proceedings: The procedural journey of this case reveals that on 29.08.2023, the complaint was received and registered through e- filing. The matter progressed to pre-summoning examination which concluded on 22.09.2023, with cognizance being taken under Section 138 NI Act. When summons were issued on 08.01.2024, the accused failed to appear, necessitating the issuance of bailable warrants.
5. The accused eventually appeared through counsel on 17.05.2024, following which the procedural formalities of bail bonds and notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. were completed on 28.09.2024. Significantly, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Permission for cross-examination under Section 145(2) NI Act was granted, and both parties expressed willingness to explore mediation, leading to a referral to the Mediation Cell on 05.10.2024.
6. When mediation failed, as reported on 13.12.2024, the matter was listed for cross-examination on 05.03.2025. The matter was then adjourned to 31.05.2025, but cross-examination could not take place as neither the complainant was present, nor the Counsel for the accused was present. The matter got adjourned for 29.08.2025
7. On 29.08.2025, when the matter came up for the third attempt at cross-
examination, a confluence of circumstances created the situation that led to the impugned order.
Impugned Order:
DLND010071922025 Page 4 of 18 Cr Revision No. 504/2025Omkara Industries Vs. R.L. Polymers Pvt. Ltd.
8. The impugned order reveals the sequence of events that transpired on 29.08.2025. Initially, when counsel for the complainant claimed the complainant was present but could not produce him, the Court granted time till 12:00 PM. Subsequently, when counsel for the accused sought passovers, the Court imposed a cost of Rs.1,000/- and later increased it to Rs.5,000/- as a condition for cross-examination.
9. The situation escalated when counsel for the accused contested the accuracy of the order sheet, leading the Court to increase the cost to Rs.10,000/-.
10. When the accused refused to pay the cost and counsel expressed intent to challenge the order, the Court closed the right of cross-examination entirely. The order further records that the accused's statement was taken regarding defence evidence, wherein he stated he did not wish to lead defence evidence, leading to its closure as well.
11. The impugned order is reproduced as under:
"Present: Ms. Prerna, Id. counsel for the complainant. Complainant absent. Sh. Suresh, counsel for com- plainant is not complying the VC rules and continuously interfering in the court proceedings. Despite direc- tions of the court, he is not ready to switch on the camera. Accordingly, he is expelled Ld. proxy counsel for accused with accused through VC. Matter is at the stage of CE.
Counsel Suresh Chaudhary as well as Ms. Prema are continuously pressing that the complainant is physi- cally present in court but in reality he is not, passover is given to them till 12.00 PM to produce the com- plainant for the purpose of cross examination else heavy cost will be imposed. Passover sought by proxy counsel for accused also till 12.00 PM. Heard.Allowed. Both the parties are directed to appear till 12.00 PM. Be awaited till 12.00 PM."
"At 12:00 PM Present: Same as above with complainant.
Further passover granted till 12.15 PM at the request of accused"DLND010071922025 Page 5 of 18 Cr Revision No. 504/2025
Omkara Industries Vs. R.L. Polymers Pvt. Ltd.
"At 12:25 PM Present: Sh. Suresh Chaudhary and Ms. Prema, ld. counsel for the complainant with complainant. Accused in person.
Further passover sought by accused for 10-15 minutes. Heard. Allowed. Till12.40 PM. It is clarified that cost will be imposed after 12.40 PM."
"At 12:40 PM Present: Same as above Ld. proxy counsel for accused.
Further passover sought by proxy counsel for accused for 5 minutes. Objected by counsel for complainant. Same is allowed, subject to cost of Rs. 1000/- to be paid to the complainant as directed earlier. Cost not paid."
"At 12:53 PM Present: Sh. Suresh Chaudhary and Ms.Prerna, ld. counsel for the complainant. Sh. Rakesh Kumar, ld. counsel for accused through VC in car, despite several directions counsel is not com- plying the VC rules and his camera is continuously off on VC and he only switched on the camera only once or twice that too after strict directions of the court. Accused in person.
Further passover sought. Same is declined. However, an opportunity is being again given to cross examine the complainant subject to cost of Rs. 5000/- be paid to the complainant (including the previous cost of Rs. 1000/-) else right to cross will be closed.
Counsel for accused submits that he is waiting for the last 30 minutes and he sought passover for 30 minutes and not 10-15 minutes and the entire order sheet is falsely recorded. Therefore, due to this false allegation of the counsel for the accused, the cost is increased to Rs. 10,000/- to be paid to the complainant as the ordersheet is dictated in open court in physical presence of the accused, as well as the complainant and other counsels/parties sitting in the court and this shows the direct attack upon the judicial officer and court proceedings which cannot be permitted at all. Accused submits that cost should be waived else he will not pay. Counsel for accused submits that he is ready to cross examine the complainant, through VC, he is apprised that first he has to pay the cost which was the condition for granting further opportunity as his passover was declined and then he can cross either through VC or physically. He submits that he cannot pay the cost of this amount and he will challenge the-order-whatsoever and he will bring the reversal of this order from the Sessions Court. Again, the tone of the counsel for the Accused is unwarranted in the court and the way he is speaking shows that he does not have the respect even for Ld, Revisional court and thinks that he is the master of the court and can predict outcome of even Ld. Revisional court. Therefore his right is closed due to non fulfilling of the condition of paying the Cost Counsel for accused submits that complainant was not available on LDOH, same is objected by counsel for complainant that the counsel for accused is making false submissions for the presence and instead he was not available on LDOH too as per ordersheet.
Counsel for complainant submits that the matter is pending on CE since 28.09.2024 and neither complainant was cross on 13.12.2024 nor on 05.03.2025 and nor on 31.05.2025 and sufficient opportunities have been granted.DLND010071922025 Page 6 of 18 Cr Revision No. 504/2025
Omkara Industries Vs. R.L. Polymers Pvt. Ltd.
Accordingly, CW1 is examined, further right to cross examination is closed, CE stands closed. Statement of accused recorded, as per which, accused does not want to lead DE. Accordingly, DE stands closed.
Counsel for accused submits that he wants to lead DE. He is apprised that accused has stated in open court under signature that he does not want to lead DE and the trial is of the accused and not of the counsel and therefore, his right to lead DE was closed today.
Put up for final arguments on 12.09.2025, at 2.00 PM.
Since 12.00 noon till 01.37 PM, the court has given time to this matter only and the other parties scheduled for evidences at Sr. No. 106 are still waiting in the court. Copy of this order be given dasti to the both the parties."
Grounds of Revision:
12. Impugned order has been challenged on the following grounds, as mentioned in the petition and as submitted before the court by Ld. Counsel for the revisionist:
a. The primary contention relates to procedural irregularities wherein the Ld. Trial Court failed to adequately appreciate the extraordinary circumstances prevailing on 29.08.2025. The shifting of NI courts to Rouse Avenue had created significant administrative and logistical challenges for legal practitioners, while the concurrent advocates' strike against the Lt. Governor's notification had further compounded the confusion. Moreover, it was heavily raining on that day. b. These circumstances were not merely incidental but represented systemic disruptions that affected the normal functioning of courts and the ability of legal practitioners to appear timely. The learned counsel argues that the Trial Court's failure to consider these genuine external factors while imposing punitive measures reflects an error in judicial appreciation and discretion.DLND010071922025 Page 7 of 18 Cr Revision No. 504/2025
Omkara Industries Vs. R.L. Polymers Pvt. Ltd.
c. Analysis of the case timeline reveals that on two previous occasions -
05.03.2025 and 31.05.2025 - cross-examination could not proceed due to circumstances entirely beyond the accused's control.
d. The escalation of costs from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.10,000/- within a matter of hours raises serious questions about proportionality and judicial discretion.
e. The revisionist argues that the imposition of Rs.10,000/- as cost, particularly when made a condition precedent for exercising the right of cross-examination, represents a disproportionate response, more so, when the counsel for the accused was ready to cross examine the complainant, even while appearing through video conferencing.
13. The said arguments have been strongly opposed by the Ld. Counsels appearing for the complainant/respondent, who submitted that the order clearly shows that despite repeated Passovers, the Ld. Counsel of for the accused did not reach the court and also did not follow the VC rules and further made allegations on the Ld. Trial Court, which are duly recorded in the order sheet. It was also pointed out that the counsel also disrespected the Revisional Court, as clearly recorded in the order sheet. Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction and Maintainability of Revision
14. Prior to adjudicating the case on its merits, it is essential to delineate the scope and extent of these proceedings as well as the authority vested in this court under section 438 BNSS.
DLND010071922025 Page 8 of 18 Cr Revision No. 504/2025Omkara Industries Vs. R.L. Polymers Pvt. Ltd.
15. Section 438 BNSS read as under:
"438. Calling for records to exercise powers of revision.
(1)The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court, and may, when calling, for such record, direct that the execution of any sentence or order be suspended, and if the accused is in confinement that he be released on his own bond or bail bond pending the examination of the record.
Explanation.-All Magistrates, whether Executive or Judicial, and whether exercising original or appellate jurisdiction, shall be deemed to be inferior to the Sessions Judge for the purposes of this sub-section and of section 439. (2) The powers of revision conferred by sub-section (1) shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding.
(3) If an application under this section has been made by any person either to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by the other of them."
16. The wording of the section is verbatim the same as of section 397 Code of Criminal Procedure 1973.
17. A plain reading of Section 438 of the BNSS clearly indicates that Section 438(1) allows aggrieved parties to challenge the correctness, legality, or propriety of any finding, sentence, or order issued by the trial court. Such challenges can be brought before a revisional court, namely the High Court or the Sessions Judge, as Section 438 confers concurrent jurisdiction upon both judicial authorities.
DLND010071922025 Page 9 of 18 Cr Revision No. 504/2025Omkara Industries Vs. R.L. Polymers Pvt. Ltd.
18. Section 438 (2) BNSS prohibits the revision powers under Section 438(1) BNSS from being used on interlocutory orders in appeals, enquiries, trials, or other proceedings. This creates an explicit legislative bar against revising such orders.
19. It is well settled law that scope of revisional jurisdiction is limited to the extent of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order passed by the Trial Court and jurisdiction under section 438 BNSS to be exercised for setting right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law cannot be equated with the power of Appellate Court.
20. As regards the scope of section 397 Cr.P.C (analogous to section 438 BNSS) in judgment titled as 'Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander', (2012) 9 SCC 460, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed as under:-
"8. ....Section 397 of the Code vests the court with the power to call for and examine the records of an inferior court for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularity of any proceedings or order made in a case. The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law . There has to be a well- founded error and it may not be appropriate for the court to scrutinize the orders, which upon the face of it bears a token of careful consideration and appear to be in accordance with law......."
21. The Hon'ble Apex Court in 'New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Krishna Kumar Pandey', Crl. Appeal No.1852 of 2019 decided on 06.12.2019, made the following observations :
"8. The scope of the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court (or Sessions Court) under Section 397 Cr.P.C, is limited to the extent of satisfying itself as to the DLND010071922025 Page 10 of 18 Cr Revision No. 504/2025 Omkara Industries Vs. R.L. Polymers Pvt. Ltd.
correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order passed by an inferior Court. The revisional Court is entitled to look into the regularity of any proceeding before an inferior Court. As reiterated by this Court in a number of cases, the purpose of this revisionsal power is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law."
22. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Sanjaysinh Ramarao Chavan Vs. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke, (2015) 3 SCC 123 held:
"14. .........Unless the order passed by the Magistrate is perverse or the view taken by the court is wholly unreasonable or there is non-consideration of any relevant material or there is palpable misreading of records, the Revisional Court is not justified in setting aside the order, merely because another view is possible. The Revisional Court is not meant to act as an appellate court. The whole purpose of the revisional jurisdiction is to preserve the power in the court to do justice in accordance with the principles of criminal jurisprudence. The revisional power of the court under Sections 397 to 401 CrPC is not to be equated with that of an appeal. Unless the finding of the court, whose decision is sought to be revised, is shown to be perverse or untenable in law or is grossly erroneous or glaringly unreasonable or where the decision is based on no material or where the material facts are wholly ignored or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously, the courts may not interfere with decision in exercise of their revisional jurisdiction". (emphasis supplied).
23. Scope of revision has been explained in para 9 of judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi Taron Mohan Vs. State & Anr. 2021 SCC OnLine 312 which reads as under:
"9. The scope of interference in a revision petition is extremely narrow. It is well settled that Section 397 CrPC gives the High Courts or the Sessions Courts jurisdiction to consider the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding inter se an order and as to the regularity of the proceedings of any inferior court. It is also DLND010071922025 Page 11 of 18 Cr Revision No. 504/2025 Omkara Industries Vs. R.L. Polymers Pvt. Ltd.
well settled that while considering the legality, propriety or correctness of a finding or a conclusion, normally the revising court does not dwell at length upon the facts and evidence of the case. A court in revision considers the material only to satisfy itself about the legality and propriety of the findings, sentence and order and refrains from substituting its own conclusion on an elaborate consideration of evidence. "
24. The precise purpose of Revision is to examine the correctness, legality and propriety of the order in question and to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. Needless to say, that the power of revision needs to be exercised fairly, rationally and judiciously in order to put right any manifest error of law or jurisdiction.
25. As regards maintainability, though the same was not challenged by Ld. Counsel for the complainant/respondent, however, the maintainability of the present revision finds support from judicial precedents in State Vs. Prithi Singh, 1981 Cr LJ 1348. Similarly, State of Gujarat Vs. Ashulal, 2002 (4) Crimes 47 Guj1, entertained revision petition filed by State in similar facts.
1"1. This Revision Application is filed by the State against the order passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Mehsana, in Session Case No. 58 of 1990 during deposition of witness PW 16 Exh. 126 Dr.Smt.S.L. Vaya, by which the learned Addl. Sessions Judge observed that the statements recorded by this witness of the accused respondents are confession in nature and, therefore, are not admissible and further that the witness had no authority under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code to obtain statements of the accused and therefore the learned Addl. Sessions Judge held that the statements recorded by this witness were not admissible and further the learned Addl. Sessions Judge closed the evidence of witness and hence the State has filed this Revision Application against the said order passed on 5th of December, 1991 during the deposition of the above said witness."DLND010071922025 Page 12 of 18 Cr Revision No. 504/2025
Omkara Industries Vs. R.L. Polymers Pvt. Ltd.
Findings on the grounds of revision
26. Cross-examination represents one of the most crucial safeguards in criminal jurisprudence, particularly in cases under the Negotiable Instruments Act where consequences extend beyond monetary liability to potential imprisonment. Section 145(2) of the NI Act specifically empowers the accused to cross-examine the complainant, recognizing this right as essential for testing the veracity and reliability of the complainant's testimony.
27. The importance of cross-examination cannot be overstated in the context of NI Act cases, where the complainant's testimony often forms the cornerstone of the prosecution case. The right to cross-examine allows the accused to expose inconsistencies, challenge the complainant's credibility, and present alternative narratives that may establish defences such as payment, settlement, or absence of legal demand or legally enforceable debt.
28. In the present case, the accused had been specifically granted permission to cross-examine under Section 145(2) NI Act on 28.09.2024, creating a legitimate expectation and legal right that could not be withdrawn without compelling justification.
29. While courts possess powers to impose costs, such powers are subject to constitutional and legal constraints. The imposition of costs must serve legitimate purposes such as deterring frivolous litigation or compensating for unnecessary delays.
DLND010071922025 Page 13 of 18 Cr Revision No. 504/2025Omkara Industries Vs. R.L. Polymers Pvt. Ltd.
30. However, when cost imposition transforms from a disciplinary measure into a barrier for accessing rights, it exceeds permissible limits. Making payment of cost there and then as a condition precedent for exercising the statutory right of cross-examination effectively creates a financial barrier to justice.
31. The escalation of costs from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.10,000/- within the same proceeding, based primarily on counsel's objection to the order sheet's accuracy, reflects a punitive rather than corrective approach that undermines the principles of proportionality and judicial restraint.
32. A fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence mandates the separation of advocate-client relationships from the accused-court relationship. An accused person cannot be held responsible for the professional conduct or alleged misconduct of their counsel, nor can their substantive legal rights be prejudiced by their advocate's behavior.
33. In the present case, the additional cost of Rs.5,000/- was specifically imposed for false allegations and unwarranted tone of counsel. This approach violates well-established legal principles that protect accused person from bearing the consequences of their counsel's professional conduct.
34. The appropriate mechanism for addressing counsel misconduct lies in professional regulatory frameworks through Bar Council proceedings or contempt of court actions, not through prejudicing the accused's substantive rights or imposing financial penalties upon them.
DLND010071922025 Page 14 of 18 Cr Revision No. 504/2025Omkara Industries Vs. R.L. Polymers Pvt. Ltd.
35. The Trial Court's approach to closing defence evidence raises serious legal and procedural concerns. The order records that the accused stated he "does not want to lead DE," but when counsel sought to lead defence evidence, the Court refused, stating that the trial belongs to the accused and not the counsel. The proper judicial approach would have involved clarifying the accused's intentions, ensuring informed decision-making, and providing adequate opportunity for consultation with counsel before recording such a crucial decision that could irreversibly prejudice the defence case.
36. This Court acknowledges that maintaining proper court discipline and decorum is essential for the effective administration of justice. Courts function as solemn institutions where disputes are adjudicated through reasoned discourse and legal principles. However, the pursuit of discipline must not overshadow the fundamental objective of justice delivery.
37. The atmosphere in courtrooms can indeed become charged during adversarial proceedings, and legal practitioners may occasionally display emotions or make statements that courts find inappropriate. While such conduct cannot be condoned, the judicial response must be measured, proportionate, and focused on correction rather than punishment.
38. The approach should prioritize protecting litigants' substantive rights while addressing procedural irregularities through appropriate channels. Courts must exercise restraint in using coercive powers, particularly when DLND010071922025 Page 15 of 18 Cr Revision No. 504/2025 Omkara Industries Vs. R.L. Polymers Pvt. Ltd.
such use may prejudice fundamental rights or create irreversible consequences for the parties involved.
39. Expectations from Legal Practitioners: This Court hopes and expects that counsel for all parties will maintain the highest standards of professional conduct and court etiquette. Legal practitioners bear the responsibility of zealously protecting their clients' interests while maintaining the dignity and decorum that judicial proceedings demand. The courtroom is indeed an arena where disputes are contested, but it must also remain a forum where reasoned arguments prevail over emotional outbursts and where mutual respect between bench and bar facilitates the pursuit of justice. This Court trusts that counsel for the accused/appellant will take note of these observations and ensure that future proceedings are conducted in an atmosphere conducive to fair adjudication.
40. After careful examination of the impugned order and the circumstances leading to its passing, this Court finds that while the Ld. Trial Court's concern for maintaining discipline was legitimate, the measures adopted were disproportionate. The complete denial of cross-examination rights, particularly when coupled with cost imposition as a condition precedent, violates principles of criminal jurisprudence. Once the court had imposed the cost, an opportunity had to be given to pay the cost and cross examine the witness. The imposition of cost and closure of right to cross examine the complainant and thereafter closing defence evidence within 13 minutes from DLND010071922025 Page 16 of 18 Cr Revision No. 504/2025 Omkara Industries Vs. R.L. Polymers Pvt. Ltd.
12:40 PM to 12:53 PM is too harsh a step, which needs some correction to make the action taken commensurate to the events that took place before Ld. Trial Court.
41. The cumulative effect of the impugned order - denial of cross- examination, closure of defence evidence, and imposition of substantial costs
- creates a situation where the accused has been effectively denied the opportunity to present a meaningful defence.
42. The principle that justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done requires that accused persons receive adequate opportunity to challenge the prosecution case and present their defence. The impugned order fails to meet this fundamental requirement.
43. The interests of justice demand that the accused be provided with the opportunity to exercise rights that were denied, particularly given the potential for establishing a defence to the charges. Having carefully weighed all factors, examined the legal principles involved, and considered the submissions of both parties, this Court concludes that while some measures may have been justified to maintain court decorum, the complete denial of statutory rights together with imposition of cost represents a disproportionate response that undermines the fairness of the trial process.
DLND010071922025 Page 17 of 18 Cr Revision No. 504/2025Omkara Industries Vs. R.L. Polymers Pvt. Ltd.
44. FINAL ORDER This revision petition is hereby PARTLY ALLOWED and the impugned order dated 29.08.2025 is MODIFIED in the following terms:
a. Regarding Cross-Examination Rights: The closure of cross- examination rights is set aside as being legally unsustainable. The accused/revisionist is granted one final opportunity to cross-examine the complainant before the learned Trial Court. Cross-examination must be concluded on the next date of hearing, so fixed for the said purpose by Ld. Trial Court and concluded on that day, unless extraordinary circumstances beyond the parties' control prevent such conclusion b. Regarding Cost: The cost structure imposed by Ld. Trial Court requires modification to ensure proportionality and fairness. The cost of Rs.5,000/- imposed in connection with cross-examination proceedings is sustained as a reasonable measure to ensure seriousness of purpose and to provide some compensation for the delays caused. However, the additional cost of Rs.5,000/- imposed specifically for alleged counsel misconduct is set aside, as accused cannot be held financially responsible for their counsel's professional conduct. The cost shall be paid to the complainant before Ld. Trial Court. c. Regarding Defence Evidence: The closure of defence evidence rights is set aside as having been effected without proper consideration of the accused's informed consent and the circumstances under which the relevant statement was made. The accused shall be permitted to lead defence evidence after completion of cross-examination, should he so desire.DLND010071922025 Page 18 of 18 Cr Revision No. 504/2025
Omkara Industries Vs. R.L. Polymers Pvt. Ltd.
45. This case serves as a reminder that the administration of justice requires delicate balancing between maintaining court discipline and protecting statutory rights of the parties. While courts must ensure proper conduct of proceedings, this objective must be achieved through means that do not compromise the essential fairness of the trial process.
46. The modification of the impugned order serves the dual purpose of upholding procedural fairness while maintaining appropriate disciplinary measures. This Court trusts that all stakeholders will learn from this experience and work collaboratively to create an environment where justice is delivered efficiently, fairly, and with due regard for the dignity and decorum of the Court and the judicial process.
47. The revision petition stands PARTLY ALLOWED to the extent indicated above.
48. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the learned Trial Court for immediate compliance.
49. File be consigned to record room.
Digitally
SAURABH signed by
Announced in the open Court PARTAP SAURABH
PARTAP
SINGH
on 11th of September 2025 LALER SINGH
LALER
(Saurabh Partap Singh Laler)
ASJ-05 New Delhi
Patiala House Courts
Delhi 11.09.2025