HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.154/2025 M/s Santosh Tractor, Through Proprietor Jaideep Singh S/o Chandra Singh R/o Shehbad Road, Baran. ----Petitioner Versus Premnarayan S/o Mohan Lal, R/o Maytha Panchayat Kunjed, Tehsil Attru Baran, District Baran, Rajasthan. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh Mr. Areeb Ahmad JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 13/01/2025 1. By way of filing of this petition, a challenge has been lead to the impugned order dated 05.12.2024 by which the application filed by the petitioner for granting one more opportunity to cross- examine the accused-respondent has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent is facing trial for the offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1881”) and after closure of the complainant evidence, more than 10 opportunities were sought by him for producing the defence evidence. Learned counsel submits that on 08.10.2024, examination in chief of the accused-respondent was recorded but on the same day, counsel for the complainant was not available, hence under these circumstances, the opportunity of the complainant to cross-examine the respondent-accused has been closed. Learned counsel submits that at least one opportunity (2 of 3) [CRLMP-154/2025] should have been granted to the petitioner to cross-examine the accused but the same has been declined vide impugned orders dated 08.10.2024 and 05.12.2024. Learned counsel submits that for conducting a fair trial, equal opportunities should be given to the prosecution as well as defence. Learned counsel submits that, in the instant case, the aforesaid principle has already been violated by the Court below, hence under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 3. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 4. Perusal of the record indicates that around 10 opportunities were granted to the accused for producing the defence evidence and finally he put himself in the witness box and on 08.10.2024, but on the relevant day, counsel for the complainant was not available and on the very same day, opportunity of petitioner was closed and no further opportunity was granted to the petitioner to cross-examine the accused. Learned counsel submits that by way of passing the impugned order, the Trial Court has committed an error and violated the principles of natural justice because in criminal cases for conducting a fair trial, both sides should get equal opportunity to cross-examine but in the instant case, the complainant has failed to get the opportunity to cross-examine the accused. 5. In view of above, the instant criminal misc. petition stands disposed of, granting one last opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the accused on the next date. It is made clear that, in case, the complainant fails to cross-examine the accused on the next date, no further opportunity would be granted. (3 of 3) [CRLMP-154/2025] 6. Stay application as well as all applications (pending, if any) also stand disposed of. 7. The reason for passing this ex parte order without issuing any notice to the respondent is to avoid further delay in disposal of the complaint submitted by the petitioner-complainant pending before the court below since last several years. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/50