Delhi District Court
Malti vs . The State & Another on 19 October, 2020
IN THE COURT OF MS. NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA:
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,
SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURT, NEW DELHI
CR NO. 73/2020
MALTI VS. THE STATE & ANOTHER
Ms. Malti W/o Late Sh. Rajni Kant
R/o: House No. 22, Bazar Lane,
Bhogal, New Delhi - 110065. .......... Revisionist/Accused
VERSUS
1. The State
(Govt. of NCT of Delhi) .......... Respondent No. 1
2. Sh. Rajanbeer Singh
S/o Late Sh. Ravinder Singh
R/o: House No. 48, Masjid Lane,
Bhogal, New Delhi - 110065. .......... Respondent No. 2/
Complainant
First date before this Court: 18.02.2020
Arguments heard : 19.10.2020
Date of Decision : 19.10.2020
ORDER:
1. The Revision Petition under Section 397/398/399 & 400 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the Revisionist/Accused against the Order dated 10.02.2020 vide which the right of the Revisionist/Accused to examine his witness has been closed.
2. It is submitted in the Revision Petition that a complaint under Section 138 of N. I. Act was filed by the Respondent No. 2 /Complainant in which Notice under Section 251 Cr. P. C. was framed against the Revisionist/Accused on 22.02.2017. The Respondent No. 2/Complainant examined himself as CW-1 and CR NO. 73/2020 MALTI VS. THE STATE & ANOTHER Page No. 1 of 3 Sh. Sukhwinder Singh as CW-2, who were duly cross-examined by the Revisionist/Accused. Thereafter, the Statement of Revisionist/ Accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr. P. C. and the matter was adjourned for his defence evidence. The Revisionist/Accused sought permission of the Court to examine Handwriting Expert and thereafter the matter was listed for defence evidence for 08.02.2020. It was holiday on 08.02.2020 and 09.02.2020. The matter was taken up by the Ld. Trial Court on 10.02.2020, but the Revisionist/ Accused was unable to appear on the said date. The evidence of the Revisionist/Accused was closed vide impugned order dated 10.02.2020.
3. The impugned order is challenged on the ground that non- appearance of the Revisionist/Accused before the Ld. Trial Court on 08.02.2020 and 09.02.2020 was on account of holiday. The Revisionist/Accused has submitted that he had complied with all the directions/orders of the Court without any fail and requested that one opportunity may be given to examine the Handwriting Expert.
4. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent No. 2/Complainant has submitted that matter is pending for defence evidence and no cogent explanation has been given by the Revisionist/Accused for non- appearance and it is only a delaying tactics on the part of the Revisionist/Accused.
5. I have heard the arguments from both the parties and perused the record. My observations are as under:
6. Considering the explanation that the Revisionist/Accused was unable to appear before the Ld. Trial Court on 08.02.2020 since 08.02.2020 was holiday and thereafter the matter was taken up on CR NO. 73/2020 MALTI VS. THE STATE & ANOTHER Page No. 2 of 3 10.02.2020, the impugned order dated 10.02.2020 is set-aside and one opportunity is given to the Revisionist/Accused to conclude his entire evidence. No further opportunity shall be given to the Revisionist/Accused on any ground whatsoever. Ld. Trial Court may give one date to the Revisionist/Accused to conclude his entire evidence. The Revision Petition is hence allowed.
7. Trial Court Record be sent back along with a copy of this order.
8. Parties to appear before the Ld. Trial Court on the date already fixed i.e. 26.10.2020.
9. Revision Petition be consigned to Record Room.
NEENA Digitally signed by
NEENA BANSAL
BANSAL KRISHNA
Date: 2020.10.19
KRISHNA 16:45:31 +0530
Announced in open Court (Neena Bansal Krishna)
On 19.10.2020 Principal District & Sessions Judge,
(KSR) South-East, Saket Courts, New Delhi
CR NO. 73/2020
MALTI VS. THE STATE & ANOTHER Page No. 3 of 3