Hi Tec Abrasive Limited vs Animesh Ispat Pvt. Ltd

Heard.

Being aggrieved with the order dated 20.10.2022 passed by the Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur in Criminal Revision No.251/2022, whereby, upholding the order dated 23.5.2022 passed in Criminal Case No.60/2011, opportunity of cross-examination of the petitioner, was closed .

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that against the petitioner, a complaint case has been filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. On the date of hearing i.e. 23.5.2022, since the original counsel for the petitioner was out of station, he could not appear in the the complaint case and a prayer was sought for adjournment, which was disallowed and the opportunity of cross-examination was closed. He submits that earlier also, the case was closed and the Revisional Court, to meet the ends of justice, granted another opportunity to the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that it is the settled law that a party cannot be made to suffer on account of the fault on the part of the Advocate. He submits that there is no fault on the part of the petitioner and he has duly engaged a counsel for his defence. He submits that the case of the petitioner on merits cannot be compromised on such score. He prays for granting at least one more opportunity by imposing appropriate cost on the petitioner for cross-examination of the complainant.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-complainant submits that the petitioner is protecting the trial deliberately and earlier also, sufficient opportunity was granted to the petitioner, even then, he was was not vigilant and paid proper attention to the remand order, therefore, the approach of both the Courts below is just and proper, which does not call for any interference.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed along with the petition.

After the earlier remand order for recross-examination on 7.10.2021, the complainant was present but the accused persons were not present. Further, the counsel for the petitioner was also present but he was not ready for cross-examination, therefore, the trial Court considering the fact that the case is more than two years old, as a last indulgence, granted an opportunity. However, for one or the other reason i.e. to arrive at a amicable settlement between the parties, the matter was adjourned. Thereafter, when the case was listed on 23.5.2022, the Senior Counsel for the petitioner was not present, therefore, a prayer was sought to adjourn the matter for cross-examination, which was disallowed by the impugned order.

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, particularly considering that on the date of hearing, the adjournment was sought on the ground that the original counsel for the petitioner was out of station and further considering that the party cannot be made to suffer on account of the fault of their Counsel, this Court, to meet the ends of justice, finds appropriate to provide one more opportunity to the petitioner for cross-examination of the complainant on payment of cost of Rs.5000/- within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the trial Court, failing which, this order shall lose its efficacy. Ordered accordingly.

It is directed that on deposit of the aforesaid amount, the same shall be paid to the complainant. It is made clear that no further opportunity shall be granted to the petitioner-accused for further cross-examination.

With the aforesaid observation/direction, the petition is disposed of.