HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 51/2020 Shivlal S/o Shri Balaram, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Baniya Ka Bag, Jaipur Road Alwar, Raj. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp. 2. Satish Kumar Chabda S/o Shri Deewanchand Chabda , R/o Scheme No.2, Alwar Karta Paetner Amba Fruit Company A-15 Nai Sabji Mandi, Alwar. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : None present For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Singh Dhakar, PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 21/04/2026 1. By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 13.05.2019 passed by the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate, NI Act Cases No.2, Alwar, by which the opportunity of cross-examination of the accused-petitioner (herein after referred to as ‘accused’) to cross- examine the complainant PW-1 Satish Kumar Chabda has been closed. 2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, an application was submitted for recall of the aforesaid order. However, the said application was rejected vide order dated 15.07.2019. 3. None has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner to argue the matter, but looking to the fact that the matter pertains to year 2019 and the instant petition is lying pending before this (2 of 4) [CRLMP-51/2020] Court since 2020, this Court deems it just and proper to look into the contents of the instant petition and the order impugned annexed therewith, which indicate that the petitioner is facing trial for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 4. It appears that in-spite of availing several opportunities, the petitioner failed to cross-examine with the complainant PW-1, hence, his opportunity of cross-examination was closed by the Court below by passing the order impugned. 5. This fact is not in dispute that the petitioner was negligent in conducting the case before the Court below and delay has been caused at the instance of the petitioner in disposal of the complaint submitted by the respondent-complainant. 6. Looking to the fact that important question of law and facts is involved in the instant matter and considering the aspect that the fair trial is a fundamental right of an accused as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India and also considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order passed by the Court below dated 13.05.2019 and subsequent order dated 15.07.2019 stand quashed and set-aside, so also the consequential order dated 23.09.2019 passed by the Revisional Court i.e. the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Alwar also stands quashed and set-aside. 7. The instant criminal misc. petition stands disposed of with the following terms and conditions: “(I) The petitioner would pay a cost amount of Rs.11,000/- to the complainant before the next date, before the Trial Court. (3 of 4) [CRLMP-51/2020] (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 a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. (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 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. 7. 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. 8. In case, the petitioner complies with the aforesaid conditions within the above stipulated period, the Trial Court would grant one last opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine with the complainant-respondent. In case, the petitioner fails to avail the aforesaid opportunity on the next date, no further opportunity would be granted to the petitioner for the aforesaid purpose. (4 of 4) [CRLMP-51/2020] 9. The reason for passing this ex-parte order without issuing notice to the complainant is to avoid further delay and in the interest of both sides, this order has been passed. Even if, the complainant feels aggrieved by this order, he would be at liberty to move an application for recall of this order, by way of filing a revival application. 10 This order would be effective only if the trial is still pending and if it has already been concluded, then this order will not have any effect. 11. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the criminal misc. petition along with all applications (pending, if any) stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/31