Page No.# 1/4 GAHC040017692023 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Crl.Petn./238/2023 Deep Ghosh Son of Late Dipak Ghosh, Proprietor of M/s B.L Electricals Natun Para, P.O and P.S Tezpur, Dist. Sonitpur, Assam - 784001 VERSUS M/s T.L Construction Having its registered office at Picnic Road, Tippi, P.O and P.S Bhalukpong, Dist. West Kameng, Arunachal Pradesh. Proprietor Mr. Tage Lapung, Represented by its Assistant Manager, Shri Leki Wangchu Advocate for the Petitioner : 1 S Dey, Tado Siga,1 S Dey Advocate for the Respondent : , BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER Date : 10-11-2025 Heard Ms N. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner appearing through the virtual mode. None appears on behalf of the sole respondent. 2. Due to none completion of the service upon the sole respondent, this Page No.# 2/4 Court had earlier allowed the petitioner to take service by dasti mode vide order dated 26.06.2024. Though the compliance affidavit was filed, but due to non-narration of certain details, the said affidavit was not accepted, vide order dated 21.01.2025. Subsequently, vide order dated 25.07.2025, the petitioner was allowed to take fresh steps by registered post as well as dasti service and submit compliance affidavit. 3. As reflected in the office note dated 21.08.2025, the compliance affidavit regarding such dasti service upon the respondent was filed. Perused the said affidavit, which states that notice was received by the proprietor Tage Lapung of M/s T. L. Construction on 17.08.2025. A copy of the receipt has also been annexed and I have perused the same. Accordingly, the service is deemed to be complete. Considerable time has elapsed from the said date of receipt of notice dated 17.08.2025 but the sole respondent has not appeared. 4. The petitioner, who as an accused is facing the trial in CR Case No.08/2017 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bomdila, sought to adduce defence evidence, but the same was rejected vide the order dated 30.08.2023 by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bomdila, as earlier 2(two) dates had already elapsed for adducing of such evidence. The said order was taken up in criminal revision to the learned Sessions Judge, West Kameng in Crl.Revision No.01/2023. The revisional court concurred with the order of the learned trial court and vide order dated 30.09.2023 upheld the same by observing that the petitioner/accused has not filed any affidavit before the learned court below in terms of Section 145 Sub- Section 2 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (NI Act). It was also Page No.# 3/4 observed by the learned revisional Court that as per the statutory provision under section 315 Cr.P.C (as it existed then) - presently Section 353 of BNSS, 2023 - if an accused desires to examine himself as witness in a trial, he has to give a request in writing. 5. It is submitted by the learned petitioner counsel that the accused wanted to adduce defence evidence in the form of important materials and documents regarding misuse of the cheque and that since he is facing a criminal prosecution, depriving him from adducing defence evidence could cause him substantial prejudice. 6. The learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to Annexure-5 and Annexure-6 of the petition. Annexure-5 is a letter dated 17.06.2017, purportedly written by the petitioner/accused to the Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, regarding loss of cheque bearing No.020639. It is also stated in para-5 of the petition that the counsel who was earlier representing the petitioner was appointed as Chief Legal Aid Defence Counsel (LADC), and it is contended in this context that there was miscommunication and failure to take steps resulting in delay in adducing the defence evidence. 7. In the entire facts and circumstances, I deem it fit to give an opportunity to adduce defence evidence; however, without delaying the trial. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 30.08.2023, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bomdila, in C.R Case No.08/2017, and the order dated 30.09.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sessions Division, Bomdila in Crl.Rev. No.01/2023 are hereby interfered with and Page No.# 4/4 set aside. 8. The petitioner/accused shall prefer an application under Section 353 of the BNSS, 2023 for examining himself as witness. He shall also submit before the court, the list of witnesses, which he desires to examine as defence witnesses on his behalf. Thereafter, the learned trial court shall pass necessary orders as per law. To ensure that the matter is not delayed for defence evidence, the learned trial court shall try to complete the stage of defence evidence within a period of 2(two) months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 9. The instant criminal petition stands allowed and disposed of on the aforesaid terms. JUDGE Comparing Assistant