Delhi District Court
Bhavneet Singh vs Pawanjot Singh on 27 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC)
SOUTH-WEST DISTRICT, NEW DELHI
PRESIDED BY : Mr. HIMANSHU RAMAN SINGH
CR No. 1914/2024
CNR No. DLSW010051672024
IN THE MATTER OF
Bhavneet Singh
S/o Sh. Gurdeep Singh
R/o House No.16/28, Near MCD Hospital,
Tilak Nagar, New Delhi-110018.
.......REVISIONIST
VERSUS
Pawanjot Singh
S/o Late Sh. Harbhajan Singh
R/o E-6, Guru Nanak Pura, Jail Road,
Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058.
......RESPONDENT
Date of institution : 31.05.2024
Date on which reserving : 22.12.2025
Date of pronouncement : 27.01.2026.
JUDGMENT
1. The present revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 04.05.2024 passed by the court of Sh. Anshul Mehta, Ld. MM (NI Act-08), Dwarka Courts, New Delhi whereby the application U/s 328 CrPC filed by the revisionist/accused has been dismissed, as well as against the orders dated 09.06.2023 and 07.12.2022, passed by the court of Bhavneet Singh vs. Pawanjot Singh CR No. 1914/2024 Page 1 of 18 Dr. Satinder Kumar Gautam, PO Special Court (NI Act), South- West District, Dwarka Courts, whereby the application of revisionist/accused for reopening the defence evidence and grant of relief U/s 330 CrPC was dismissed and the application U/s 311 CrPC for recalling the complainant alongwith ITR, was dismissed and defence evidence was closed.
2. On notice of the revision petition having been issued to the respondent Pawanjot Singh, he entered appearance through his counsel and contested the petition.
3. For the sake of clarity, the parties are being referred to hereinafter with their respective nomenclature before the Ld. Trial Court.
4. Alongwith the present appeal, an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act, for condonation of delay of about 447 days in filing the revision against the order dated 07.12.2022, thereby dismissing the application U/s 311 CrPC moved on behalf of the revisionist herein and closing of DE and for condonation of delay of about 262 days in filing the revision against the order dated 09.06.2023, whereby the application U/s 330 Cr.P.C. for reopening of the defence evidence was dismissed. It is asserted that the revisionist is suffering from Nuero disorder/complications and various other ailments for which he is undergoing treatment and doctor had advised him complete restrictions on movement and even driving the vehicle. It is stated that mother of revisionist is also suffering from old aged ailments and she need proper attention and for that reason the revisionist was busy in doing all necessary chores. It is also Bhavneet Singh vs. Pawanjot Singh CR No. 1914/2024 Page 2 of 18 stated that revisionist is entirely dependent upon his parents for his entire medical expenses and for all his day to day needs as he is not physically fit to perform his daily work. Hence, it is submitted that on account of the above stated events, the revisionist was unable to file the present revision petition in time and the delay was occasioned.
5. The application has been vehemently opposed on behalf of the Ld. Counsel for the respondent on the ground that the revisionist has been repeatedly filing more or less similar applications by changing their nomenclature thereby delaying the proceedings before the Ld. Trial Court.
6. Although the delay of about 447 and 262 days in challenging the orders 09.06.2023 and 07.12.2022 respectively, has not been satisfactorily explained, considering the fact that Hon'ble Superior Courts have time and again reiterated that matters should be disposed off on merits rather than on technicalities, without taking any hyper technical view, the delay if any in filing of the present revision petition stands condoned.
7. The assertion of the revisionist in the present revision petition is that the orders passed by the Ld. Trial Courts are legally unsustainable, arbitrary, and contrary to the settled principles of law. It is added that the impugned orders passed by the ld. Trial Court are based on conjectures and surmises and are absolutely perverse, illegal, capricious and erroneous, both in law and in facts and hence are liable to be set aside. It is stated that ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that the revisionist is suffering from Nuero disorder and is not in a position to perform Bhavneet Singh vs. Pawanjot Singh CR No. 1914/2024 Page 3 of 18 his day to day activities and without considering his difficulties, both the applications of revisionist were dismissed. That the ld. Trial Court also failed to take into consideration the medical certificate and treatment papers of the revisionist which were issued by the Specialist doctor and has also failed to consider legal ratio defined by the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble High Court with respect to Section 328 CrPC and 311 CrPC. That the ld. Trial court has failed to consider the procedure in cases where the accused is lunatic whereby the Ld. Trial Court is required to inquire into the claim of unsoundness of mind and get the said person examined by a civil surgeon of the district or such other medical officer, etc., and upon receipt of report of the medical officer, examine the said medical officer as a witness and shall reduce the examination into writing, however, in the instant case no such inquiry was held by the Ld. Trial Court. It is contended that the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that the accused/revisionist was not in a condition to perform his day to day activities then how he can lead his defence and the absence of defence will hit the principle of justice. The the ld. Trial court failed to appreciate the fact that the respondent alleged that he had paid Rs. 4 lakhs by way of cash but he could not clarify from which source he obtained the said amount of Rs. 4 lakhs. That the ld. Trial court failed to appreciate that the respondent is money lender and in his cross examination, the respondent himself admitted that he does not have the money lender license and thereby the business run by the respondent is hitting/violation of any statue and is not entitled to recover the money U/s 138 NI Act. That the ld. Trial court failed to Bhavneet Singh vs. Pawanjot Singh CR No. 1914/2024 Page 4 of 18 appreciate that concealment of fact on the part of any party is not entitled for any relief. It is stated that Ld. Trial Court committed illegality by not appreciating the documents placed on record by the revisionist. That the impugned orders are grave miscarriage and failure of justice to the revisionist and same has cause grave inconvenience and hardship to the revisionist. It is accordingly, prayed that the impugned orders be set aside.
8. Ld. Counsel for the complainant/respondent has vehemently opposed the contentions of the Ld. Counsel for the accused/revisionist that the accused failed to bring on record any material to disprove the fact of loan given to the accused by the complainant. That the assertions of the accused that he had discharged his onus is contrary to the record. That the Ld. Trial Court rightly evaluated the evidence on record. It is urged that the Ld. Trial Court rightly convicted the accused for offence U/s 138 NI Act vide the judgment which is a detailed and well reasoned judgment. That all the contentions of the accused have been dealt with by the Ld. Trial Court in the impugned judgment. It is stated the the complainant proved his case before the Ld. Trial Court against the accused, whereas the accused failed to prove his defence before the Ld. Trial Court.
9. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate here to refer to the facts of the present case culminating in the present adjudication. Briefly stated it is the case of the complainant that the complainant and accused were having good friendly relations and in the first week of October 2016, the accused approached the complainant for advancement of friendly loan of Rs.4 lakhs as the accused was in dire need of money. It is Bhavneet Singh vs. Pawanjot Singh CR No. 1914/2024 Page 5 of 18 stated that on demand of accused, on 14.10.2016, the complainant advanced loan of Rs. 4 lakhs to the accused and while taking the said loan, the accused had promised to repay the same in four months and accused executed various documents i.e. Promissory Note and Receipt in favour of the complainant. It is stated that in order to discharge his above said liability, the accused issued a cheque bearing No.078351 dated 15.02.2017 for a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs, drawn on Allahabad Bank in favour of complainant and assured the complainant that the same shall be honoured on presentation. It is stated that on presentation of the cheque bearing No. 078351 dated 15.02.2017 of Rs.4,00,000/- by the complainant in his bank i.e. Oriental Bank of Commerce, Janakpuri branch, Delhi, the said cheque was returned dishonoured with the remarks "Funds Insufficient" vide returning memo dated 20.02.2017. Thereafter, despite issue of legal notice dated 17.03.2017 sent through Speed Post, the accused failed to make payment and thereafter complaint case U/s 138 NI Act was filed against the accused.
10. The complainant examined himself in pre- summoning evidence and proved on record documents i.e. Ex.CW1/1 to Ex.CW1/9. The accused was summoned to face trial. Notice of accusation was served upon the accused on 19.01.2018, in which the accused stated he has not filled any of the particulars of the cheques in question, however he admitted his signatures on the cheque. He stated that he did not receive any legal demand notice and did not remember about execution of promissory note. He further stated that he had approached the complainant for a loan of Rs.1 lakh whereupon, the complainant Bhavneet Singh vs. Pawanjot Singh CR No. 1914/2024 Page 6 of 18 demanded a blank signed security cheque from him and complainant also obtained his signatures on the blank promissory notes and blank papers. He stated that no loan amount was credited in his account and the cheque has been misused and as such he do not owe any liability towards the complainant. The accused examined, cross-examined the complainant. Statement of accused U/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which the accused admitted that he had approached the complainant for advancement of loan of Rs. 1 lakh in year 2016 and the complainant promised to remit the loan amount in his bank account and obtained his signatures on blank signed promissory note and receipt. He stated that complainant also took the cheque in question, but no amount was remitted by the complainant and the cheque has been misused. Appellant/accused examined Sh. Gurdeep Singh as DW1 and Sh. Prabhat Chandra Jha, Senior Manager, Allahabad Bank, Tilak Nagar Branch, as DW2 in his defence evidence. The accused filed an application for referring the cheque in question and document Ex.CW1/1 to FSL for expert opinion, which was dismissed vide order dated 01.02.2020. Thereafter, vide order dated 07.12.2022, the application U/s 311 CrPC filed the accused for recalling the complainant alongwith ITR was dismissed and vide order dated 08.02.2023 DE was closed matter was listed for final arguments. It is stated that vide order dated 09.06.2023, the application for reopening the defence evidence and for grant of relief U/s 330 CrPC, filed by the accused was dismissed and vide order dated 04.05.2024, the application of the accused U/s 328 CrPC was also dismissed. Thereafter, vide order dated 29.08.2024 the Bhavneet Singh vs. Pawanjot Singh CR No. 1914/2024 Page 7 of 18 application U/s 311 CrPC of the accused was dismissed. Vide the judgment dated 18.10.2024, the accused was convicted for offence U/s 138 NI Act. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned orders dated 04.05.2024, 09.06.2023 and 07.12.2022, the revisionist filed the present revision petition.
11. The record has been carefully and thoroughly perused. The submissions of learned counsel for complainant as well as ld. Counsel for respondent have been duly considered.
12. Chronologically, the first order under challenge is the order dated 07.12.2022. The relevant portion of the order dated 07.12.2022 reads as under :-
" Matter is listed for defence evidence.
Ld. Counsel for accused pressed his application u/s. 311 CrPC for recalling the complainant along with ITR of the relevant period and bank official concerned from Allahabad Bank, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi-18.
Earlier, counsel for accused filed similar application which was allowed and witness Gurdeep Singh Sethi and one bank official from Allahabad Bank of the same branch were summoned, examined and discharged. The accused did not examine himself nor any application U/s. 315 CrPC was moved on behalf of accused. Counsel for accused submitted that in his cross- examination complainant stated that he did not know whether he had filed ITR of the relevant assessment year or not and said that his Chartered Accountant must be aware of the fact and he also said that he did not know if it is reflected in the ITR with regard to advancement of the loan amount of the relevant year and also seeks directions for the complainant to file ITR for the relevant year. It is stated that the concerned bank official from the Allahabad Bank is also required to be summon along with last leaf of issued cheque volume running 07835 to 078370 dt. 29.08.2014.
Earlier also counsel for accused has filed the Bhavneet Singh vs. Pawanjot Singh CR No. 1914/2024 Page 8 of 18 similar application for the same purpose. Record shows that statement of accused was recorded on 30.11.2018, DW-1 Gurdeep Singh was examined, cross-examined and discharged on 20.04.2019 and DW-2 Prabhat Chandra Jha, Sr. Manager, Allahabad Bank, Tilak Nagar was examined, cross-examined and discharged on 19.10.2019. Since then matter is listed for remaining defence evidence and Ld. counsel for accused filed an application for permanent exemption of accused stating that he is suffering from chronic decease and accused is unable to appear and cannot be available for examination as defence witness.
Having heard the submissions and gone through the material on record.
It is relevant to mention here that the Hon'ble High Court in judgment passed in case of Manoj Sharma vs. Naresh Gupta, 2008 (1) C.C. Cases (HC) 212 and in case of Fantasy Fashon vs. Asim Kumar Sinha, 2013 (1) JCC (NI) 29 has observed that, "the court should not allow the application just to fill up the lacuna and such applications has been moved merely to delay the trial and abuse the process of law, specially when during the cross-examination such ground has never been raised".
Similar view was observed in the judgment of Sandeep Chaudhary v. Col. R.P. Mendiratta, 2012 (4) JCC (NI) 269.
The provision of Section 311 CrPC is made to advance justice to the parties and to recall or re- examine or summon any witness who is essential for just decision of the case.
In the instant case, the matter is listed for defence evidence since the year 2018 but accused never came forward to examine himself, though exemption applications filed on his behalf on most of the dates. It is matter of record that this is second application u/s. 311 CrPC moved on behalf of accused and the bank official of same branch was already examined and discharged. The complainant was already cross- examined at length and concluded on 29.09.2018. The complainant already stated in his cross-examine that he do not know whether he filed ITR for the relevant assessment year or not.
Bhavneet Singh vs. Pawanjot Singh CR No. 1914/2024 Page 9 of 18 Keeping in view the above discussion and circumstances, this court is of the view that the present application has no merit and same is hereby dismissed. DE stands closed."
13. From a bare perusal of the aforesaid order, it is clear that while passing the aforesaid order, the Ld. Trial Court has already considered all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case. It has been observed by the Ld. Trial Court that earlier the accused had filed a similar application, which was allowed and witness Gurdeep Singh Sethi and one Bank Official from Allahabad Bank were summoned, examined and discharged. The Ld. Trial Court also observed that the statement of the accused was recorded on 30.11.2018, DW-1 Gurdeep Singh was examined, cross-examined and discharged on 20.04.2019 and DW-2 Mr. Prabhat Chander Jha, Sr. Manager Allahabad Bank was examined, cross-examined and discharged on 19.10.2019 and that since then the matter was pending for remaining defence evidence. Placing reliance upon the pronouncements in Manoj Sharma (supra) and Sandeep Choudhary (supra), Ld. Trial Court has rightly observed that such applications cannot be allowed just to fill up the lacuna. The Ld. Trial Court rightly observed that the application under disposal was the second application U/s 311 Cr.P.C. and that the earlier application was allowed and the bank officials of the same branch were already examined and discharged. Ld. Trial court also observed that the complainant had already been cross-examined at length and that he had already stated that he did not know whether he had filed the ITR for the relevant assessment year or not.
14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of Bhavneet Singh vs. Pawanjot Singh CR No. 1914/2024 Page 10 of 18 the view that the order dated 07.12.2022 passed by the Ld. Trial Court is a well reasoned order and does not require any sort of interference from this Court. Accordingly, the prayer in the present revision petition to set aside the order dated 07.12.2022 stands dismissed.
15. The next order under challenge is the order dated 09.06.2023. The relevant portion of the impugned order dated 09.06.2023 reads as under :-
" No application for exemption filed.
Proxy counsel for accused submits that accused is suffering from several ailments and application for permanent exemption on his behalf has already been filed. Apart from that main counsel is also not available today as he has gone to his native place. As such, submitted that the contention raised in the application be read as part and parcel of his arguments.
No latest medical documents produced. Proxy counsel for accused submits that he cannot brought the same being proxy counsel.
As no exemption application filed nor any medical document/certificate produced, submission is declined.
Issue NBW against the accused and notice u/s. 446 CrPC to his surety on filing of PF through SHO concerned, for the NDOH. Steps be taken within two weeks. Dasti process be given, if desired.
Arguments heard on application for reopening of the defence evidence and grant relief u/s. 330 CrPC. Notice of this application has been accepted and reply filed. Copy supplied.
It is submitted on behalf of applicant /accused that vide order dt. 08.02.2023 defence evidence was closed as no defence witness was present, two defence witness already examined by the accused and matter was listed for final arguments.The court has issued BW of Rs.10,000/- against the accused and notice to surety because father of accused was directed to file the exemption application and the same was not filed. It is Bhavneet Singh vs. Pawanjot Singh CR No. 1914/2024 Page 11 of 18 further submitted that applicant/accused has moved application u/s. 311 CrPC dt. 28.11.2019 through the applicant/accused called the complainant and his banker for leading defence evidence and same is pending for disposal.
It is further submitted that in the cross-
examination of complainant it is stated that he do not know whether he has filed the ITR for the relevant assessment year or that the said Chartered Accountant must aware about the same and CW1 also said that he did not know whether ITR reflects the factum of advancement of alleged loan in relevant assessment year or not. The applicant/accused seeks direction from the court to the complainant to file the ITR for the relevant assessment year and also wanted to cross- examine the complainant through application u/s. 311 CrPC. It is further submitted that applicant/accused also moved an application u/s. 205 CrPC dt. 10.10.2022. Bailable Warrants was also issued against the accused and notice u/s. 446 CrPC to the surety. The applicant /accused also moved the application u/s. 328 CrPC which is wrongly written due to typographical mistake and same be read as moved u/s. 330 CrPC dt.
07.12.2022 and the same is still pending for disposal wehrein the applicant/accused submitted that he is suffering from neuro disorder diagnosed as cerebral atrophy and he is under treatment and he is unable to lead defence evidence and hence seeks relief under Section 338 CrPC r/w. Sec. 329 CrPC against the medical certificate.
It is further submitted that DW2 the banker of accused appear and gave its testimony but he could not bring the last leaf of the cheque from the volume containing the cheque book against which the further volume/leaf was issued and this is the material one. Hence the application u/s. 311 CrPC filed. As such, it is submitted that the present application may be allow and permitted to re-open the defence evidence.
Per contra, in response to this application reply has been filed whereas denied each and every contention of the above application and submitted that the accused moved application u/s. 311 CrPC for recalling of complainant and his banker dt. 28.11.2019 Bhavneet Singh vs. Pawanjot Singh CR No. 1914/2024 Page 12 of 18 for leading defence evidence, however, the said application was dismissed by the Hon'ble court vide order dt. 07.12.2022.
It is further argued that the present application has been filed by accused only to delayed the process of adjudication and is a sham strategy to illegally usurp the amount from the complainant and such tactics hold no value before the court of law. The provision of Section 311 CrPC is made to advance justice to the parties and to recall or re-examine or summon any witness who is essential for just decision of the case. The present matter was listed for defence evidence since the year 2018 but accused never came forward to examine himself, though exemption applications filed on his behalf on most of the dates. This is second application u/s. 311 CrPC moved on behalf of accused and the bank official of same branch was already examined and discharged. The complainant was already cross- examined at length and concluded on 29.09.2018. In the cross-examination of complainant he has stated that he do not know whether he filed the ITR for the relevant assessment year or not. The said application was dismissed having no merit and thereafter defence evidence was closed. The present application filed in order to fill up the lacuna in the defence of accused and as this court has already dismissed the application fled by the accused u/s. 311 CrPC, it is the trite law that a controversy, once adjudicated, cannot be adjudicated again as the same has been dealt appropriately by the court. Hence, the present application is liable to be dismiss with cost.
Having heard the submissions and gone through the material on record.
It is relevant to mention here that the Hon'ble High Court in judgment passed in case of Manoj Sharma vs. Naresh Gupta, 2008 (1) C.C. Cases (HC) 212 and in case of Fantasy Fashon vs. Asim Kumar Sinha, 2013 (1) JCC (NI) 29 has observed that, "the court should not allow the application just to fill up the lacuna and such applications has been moved merely to delay the trial and abuse the process of law, specially when during the cross-examination such ground has never been raised".
Bhavneet Singh vs. Pawanjot Singh CR No. 1914/2024 Page 13 of 18 Similar view was observed in the judgment of Sandeep Chaudhary v. Col. R.P. Mendiratta, 2012 (4) JCC (NI) 269.
In the instant case, the accused has not filed any documentary evidence in support of his contentions made in the application dt. 31.03.2027. Previous application u/s. 328 CrPC was annexed with photocopy of certificate issued by Dr. Madhukar Bhardwaj, MBBS, DNB (Int Medicine) DNB (Neurology), Sr. Condultant Neurology certified that "Mr. Bhavneet Singh Sethi aged 38 yrs is suffering from progressive degenerative cerebellar ataxia, possibly spinocerebellar ataxia. He has significant motor coordination difficulties, has progressive cognitive decline and memory disturbances. He also has occasional impulse control issues. He is not completely independent for his activities of daily living and requires assistance time to time." Perusal of record shows that the most of the time exemption applications were moved on behalf of accused with the same plea. An application u/s. 311 CrPC was also disposed off on 07.12.2022 wherein counsel for accused taken the similar plea.
From perusal of order dt. 07.12.2022 it reveals that accused has taken the similar plea and the application u/s. 311 CrPC was dismissed. The present application filed by accused is seeking the same relief as already declined by the court which is tantamount to abuse of process of law.
Keeping in view the above discussion and material record, this court is of the view that the present application of accused for reopening the defence evidence and grant of relief u/s 330 CrPC dt. 31.03.2023 have no merit and same is hereby dismissed. Written submissions be filed by both the parties, if already filed, the advance copy to the opposite party within two weeks time.
Put up for report / appearance/ written submission/final arguments on 22.08.2023."
16. From the recapitulation of the aforesaid order, it is clear that while deciding the application under Section 330 Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of the applicant/revisionist, the Ld. Trial Bhavneet Singh vs. Pawanjot Singh CR No. 1914/2024 Page 14 of 18 Court had rightly observed that an application U/s 311 Cr.P.C. with similar plea had already been disposed off vide order dated 07.12.2022 and therefore claiming the same relief as already declined by the court tantamount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, this court does not find any infirmity in the aforesaid order of the Ld. Trial Court warranting interference and therefore, the prayer in the present revision petition seeking setting aside of order dated 09.06.2023 also stands dismissed.
17. The last order under challenge is the order dated 04.05.2024. The relevant portion of the order dated 04.05.2024 reads as under:-
"Reply to application u/s 328 Cr.P.C filed. Arguments on the application u/s 328 Cr.P.C heard.
It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the accused that the accused is suffering from a neurological disorder due to which, he cannot lead his defence.
Therefore, it is prayed that the present matter may be postponed.
Perusal of the record reveals that vide order dated 09.06.2023, similar submissions were made by the Ld. Counsel for the accused and it was observed that accused is abusing the process of law by taking the same plea time and again.
Upon further perusal of the record, it is revealed that DE has already been closed and that the matter is at the stage of final arguments and there is no defence left to be lead. It is pertinent to mention here that no medical documents of the accused is filed, only a certificate stating that the accused is suffering from Progressive De-generative Cereberral Attexia, possibly Spino Cereberral Attexia is filed.
In view of the above, there is no merits in the application filed by the accused.
Put up for final arguments on 30.05.2024."
Bhavneet Singh vs. Pawanjot Singh CR No. 1914/2024 Page 15 of 18
18. By way of the aforesaid order, the Ld. Trial Court observed that vide order dated 09.06.2023, similar submissions were made on behalf of the revisionist and it was observed by the accused was abusing the process of law by taking the same plea again and again. The court further observed that the DE had already been closed and that the matter was at the stage of final arguments. The Court also observed that no medical documents of the accused were filed and only a certificate stating that the accused is suffering from progressive de-generative Cereberral Attexia, possibly Spino Cereberral Attexia was filed.
19. In this context, this court observes that in the trial Court Record there are as many as three applications titled/having nomenclature viz. (1) Application dated 07.12.2022 titled 'Application U/s 328 Cr.P.C.' (with regard to this application, it has been claimed in the application dated 31.03.2023 that due to typographical error, the application was titled U/s 328 Cr.P.C. and that it may be read as having been moved U/s 330 Cr.P.C.), (2) Application dated 31.03.2023 titled 'Application for re-opening the defence evidence and grant of relief U/s 330 Cr.P.C.' and (3) Application dated 22.08.2023 titled 'Application U/s 328 Cr.P.C.'. However, none of these applications is accompanied by any medical record of the revisionist/accused except a medical certificate issued by Dr. Madhukar Bhardwaj of Advanced Brain and Child Centre was filed. As per the said certificate, the accused was stated to be suffering from progressive degenerative cerebellar ataxia, possibly spinocerebellar ataxia and had significant motor coordination difficulties, has progressive cognitive decline and Bhavneet Singh vs. Pawanjot Singh CR No. 1914/2024 Page 16 of 18 memory disturbances. As per the certificate, the accused had occasional impulse control issues and was not completely independent for his activities of daily living and required assistance time to time.
20. It is relevant to note that Defence Evidence in the present case was closed vide order dated 07.12.2022 and therefore, subsequent applications under Section 328 Cr.P.C. claiming that the accused is not in a position to lead his defence evidence is of no consequence.
21. Further in none of the aforesaid applications, the defense of 'insanity' or 'unsound mind' has been claimed. There is not a single document on record to suggest that the accused is 'insane' or is of 'unsound mind', thereby making him incompetent to stand trial. In all the aforesaid applications, it has been repeatedly claimed that the revisionist/accused suffers from Cerebral Atrophy i.e. a Neuro Discorder and that the doctors have advised him complete restrictions on movement and even driving the vehicle and that he needs observations under the doctors. It has not been claimed that the accused is mentally incapable of defending himself. Further there is nothing on record to suggest that the accused/revisionist on account of his illness/restrictions on movements has been confined to his house or bed for the last many years. In fact even as per the submissions made in the application, the accused/revisionist is required to visit the hospitals/doctors for routine check ups. However, no efforts whatsoever were ever made on behalf of the accused to appear before the Ld. Trial Court. Even if it is believed that the condition of the accused is such that he is Bhavneet Singh vs. Pawanjot Singh CR No. 1914/2024 Page 17 of 18 unable to move without help, he could have appeared before the Court with assistance or through VC, if he so desired to defend his case, however, no such efforts were ever made on behalf of the accused.
22. The treatment papers of the revisionist filed alongwith the application seeking condonation of delay are either for the year 2021 or prior to that except five certificates issued by Dr. Madhukar Bhardwaj of Advanced Brain and Child Centre ranging from the September, 2022 to April, 2024. However, even in none of these certificates that the doctor has opined that the revisionist is of 'unsound mind', 'insane' or that his medical condition is such that he cannot withstand trial.
23. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the revisionist had been moving frivolous applications before the Ld. Trial Court to delay the trial proceedings without sufficient cause, which have been correctly dismissed by the Ld. Trial Court. This court does not find any reasons to interfere in the findings of the Ld. Trial Court in respect of any of the impugned orders which are found to have been based upon fair appreciation of evidence. The present revision petition is found to be without any merit and is accordingly dismissed.
24. Copy of this order be sent along with the Trial Court Record.
25. The revision file be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed by HIMANSHU HIMANSHU RAMAN Announced in the open court RAMAN SINGH SINGH Date: 2026.01.27 15:01:13 +0530 on: 27th January, 2026 (Himanshu Raman Singh) Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) South-West District, Dwarka, N.D. Bhavneet Singh vs. Pawanjot Singh CR No. 1914/2024 Page 18 of 18