HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 7593/2019 Yashpal Singh S/o Shri Mahendra Singh, Aged About 45 Years, R/o J-131, Ashok Chouck, Aadarsh Nagar, Jaipur, Raj. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, Through PP. 2. Laxminarayan S/o Shri Arjun Lal, R/o Plot No.398, Shriram Tila, Lankapuri, Jaipur, Raj. 3. Premchand Mourya S/o Laxminarayan, R/o Plot No.398, Shriram Tila, Lankapuri, Jaipur, Raj., Has Been Impleaded Party By Order Dated 22.12.2012. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Rekha Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary-PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 30/03/2026 1. By way of filing the instant petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 16.04.2019, passed by the Special Metropolitan Magistrate (N.I.Act Cases) No. 6, Jaipur Metropolitan, by which the application submitted by the accused-petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C for granting one last opportunity for cross-examination of the complainant-respondent has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is facing trial for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 before the Trial Court, but on account of some difficulties faced by the petitioner, the opportunity of cross-examination of the complainant could not be (2 of 5) [CRLMP-7593/2019] availed by him and the said opportunity was closed. Thereafter, an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was submitted by the petitioner for granting last opportunity for the aforesaid purpose, however, the same was rejected vide impugned order dated 16.04.2019. Hence, one last and final opportunity be granted to the petitioner subject to suitable costs to be imposed upon him by the Court. 3. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 4. Perusal of the impugned order and the documents available on record indicate that a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was submitted against the petitioner by the complainant on 23.04.2009, wherein cognizance was taken against him on 04.01.2010 and substance of accusation against the petitioner was recorded on 14.03.2014. Thereafter, the affidavit of the complainant was submitted on record on 22.05.2014 and subsequently several dates were posted for the purpose of cross-examination of the complainant and on every instance, time was sought by the petitioner for cross-examination with the complainant and finally, one last opportunity was granted to him on 11.06.2015 subject to payment of cost of Rs. 500/- by the petitioner and then again further opportunities were granted to him on 07.02.2018 and 15.02.2018. At this stage, an application was submitted by the petitioner under Section 91 Cr.P.C, hence the case was deferred to the next date and the said application was decided on 11-04-2019 and the case was deferred some other day by imposing a cost upon the petitioner. However the petitioner has failed to avail all these opportunities granted to (3 of 5) [CRLMP-7593/2019] him by the trial Court, that is why the opportunity of cross- examination of the complainant was closed on 26-02-2019. Thereafter, an application was submitted by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C for granting him one more opportunity to cross- examine the complainant. It appears that the whole and sole object of the petitioner was to delay the disposal of the complaint submitted by the complainant against the petitioner in the year 2009 i.e. why since 2014 till 2019 not a single opportunity was availed by the petitioner for cross-examination of the complainant. Hence more than 5 years have passed and the Court below has not committed any error in closing the opportunity of the petitioner for cross-examination of the complainant. The Court below has not committed any error in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C but looking to the fact that until and unless one last opportunity is granted to the petitioner, he would not be in a position to put his defence in a proper way without cross-examining the complainant. Hence, one last and final opportunity is granted to the petitioner with the following terms and conditions. “(I) The petitioner would pay a cost amount Rs.25,000/- to the respondent-complainant within a period of three weeks from today. (II) The petitioner would plant 25 shade bearing trees in his vicinity in public area. The aforesaid process would be carried over by him within the above stipulated time. (III) The petitioner would submit the photographs of these shade bearing trees along-with an undertaking before the Trial Court to show that the Condition No.II imposed by this (4 of 5) [CRLMP-7593/2019] Court has been duly complied with by him and he would take care of these plants till they grow and get in 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. 5. 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 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. 6. In case, the petitioner complies with the aforesaid conditions within the above stipulated period, the Trial Court would grant one last and final opportunity to the petitioner for the purpose of cross-examination of the complainant by fixing a short date. In case, the cross-examination is not completed on the said day, then the Trial Court would fix a further short date for the aforesaid purpose. In case, the petitioner fails to cross-examine the complainant-respondent on the date 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 strictly in accordance with law. 7. Before parting with this order, it is made clear that in case, the trial has concluded and final orders have been pronounced by the Trial Court then this order will not have any effect and bearing. (5 of 5) [CRLMP-7593/2019] 8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the criminal misc. petition along with stay application and all applications (pending, if any) stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/70