1 / 4 2025:CGHC:1132 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1498 of 2022 1 - Kudus Mohd. S/o Late Neer Ali Aged About 52 Years R/o Ward No. 29, Gautam Nagar, Sector - 11, Zone - 01, Khursipar Bhilai District - Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - Vinod Kumar Singh (Since Dead) Through Legal Heir As Per Honble Court Order Dated 13-11-2024. 1.1 - Amit Singh S/o Late Vinod Kumar Singh, Aged About 23 Years R/o Ward No. 29, Gautam Nagar, Sector-11, Zone-1, Khursipar, Bhilai, Tahsil And District-Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Jitendra Gupta, Advocate For Respondent : None, despite service of notice (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 08/01/2025 1. The instant petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 23/06/2022 passed by the 06th Additional Sessions Judge, Durg in Criminal case Cr.R/100/2022 whereby the order dated 09/12/2019 passed by the JMFC, Durg in Criminal Complaint Case No.3165/2015 rejecting the said complaint case, has been affirmed and the revision has been dismissed. 2. The brief facts of this case are that the applicant and the non-applicant both were acquainted with each other and the petitioner used to take loan ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.01.22 16:47:02 +0530 2 / 4 from the respondent and used to return back the same from time to time. In January, 2014 the petitioner obtained a loan of Rs.3,50,000/- for 03 months from the respondent on an assurance that he will return the same to the respondent. For security of the said loan amount, the accused petitioner executed two chqeques to the complainant and when the respondent submitted the aforesaid cheques, the same got dishonoured due to insufficient fund. Thereafter, the respondent sent a registered notice to the petitioner on 2711/2014 which was received by the accused on 01/12/2014, however, neither the same was replied nor the amount was returned to the respondent. Thereafter, the complainant filed a complaint case under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. 3. The case was registered and during pendency of the said case at the stage of evidence on 27/09/2019 complainant requested that he is heart patient and prayed for adjournment of the matter. Thereafter, the case was fixed for 19/09/2019 and on 19/09/2019 the accused could not appear and after closing evidence of the complainant, the matter was closed for final arguments and the opportunity of cross-examination of the accused was closed. The petitioner filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act which was rejected. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that both the Courts below could not consider the fact that opportunity of cross-examination is squarely covered by the natural justice and he cannot be deprived of his right to adduce evidence. He would therefore submit that the impugned order deserve to be set aside. 3 / 4 5. No appearance is made on behalf of the respondent despite service of notice. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and perused the orders and the documents. 7. Perusal of the records would show that on 09th of December, 2019, the matter was taken up for recording the evidence of the complainant, on that date the petitioner i.e. the accused could not be appeared then the learned trial Court has struck down the chance of defence of the petitioner and on the same day the application was filed by the petitioner seeking opportunity for cross-examination. The matter was posted for reply on 20/01/2020 and thereafter on 04/02/2020. After 25th of March 2020 the period of Covid-19 pandemic started and during that period, the complainant died and the normal functioning of the Court was stopped. 8. The revisional Court has rejected the revision petition of the petitioner only on the ground of delay. It is a well settled principle of law that the Courts should generally adopt the liberal approach in considering the application for condonation of delay on showing “sufficient cause” under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. On perusal of the order passed by the trial Court as well as the revisional Court, it is found that the case was fixed for cross-examination on 09th of December, 2019 and at 1.30 pm when the accused and his counsel could not appear before the Court, the trial Court struck down the chance of defence. On the same day at about 2.00 pm the accused and his counsel appeared before the trial Court and filed application for giving opportunity of cross-examination 4 / 4 of the applicant, which has not been dismissed on the same day and the said application was dismissed after near about one month i.e. on 04/02/2020. It is also pertinent to mention here that on 25th of March, 2020 the period of Covid-19 Pandemic started and during this period complainant also died. It is also pertinent to mention here that during this period of Covid-19 pandemic the normal functioning of the Court has been stopped. 9. Considering the above facts and also considering the fact that cross- examination of witness is very crucial and vital for the accused, I am inclined to allow this petition. Accordingly, the order dated 23/06/2022 passed by the revisional Court as well as the order dated 09/12/2019 passed by the trial Court are set aside. On perusal of the record it is apparent that the original complainant Vinod Kumar Singh has died and the trial Court has given permission to proceed with the complaint case, therefore, it is appropriate to direct that Amit Singh be examined and his evidence shall be recorded and thereafter the petitioner be given opportunity to cross-examine Amit Singh. It is ordered accordingly. 10. The petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE ashu