[2025:RJ-JP:43429] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 7767/2022 Sohrab Khan, R/o Chhote Khan age 40 years R/o Gram karoli Tehsil and District Alwar, Rajasthan ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. 2. Ramautar Son Of Shree Umashankar Sharma, Resident Of Village And Post Burja, Tehasil And District Alwar, Raj. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Anuj Kaushik For Respondent(s) : Mr.Manjeet Kumar JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 29/10/2025 1. By way of filing this petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 16.07.2022 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No.4, Alwar by which the revision petition submitted by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 08.04.2022 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate, NI Cases No.1, Alwar has been rejected. By passing the order dated 08.04.2022, the learned Special Judicial Magistrate has closed the petitioner’s right to produce the evidence in his defence. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 has been submitted by the complainant-respondent No.2 against the petitioner and he is facing trial in the aforesaid criminal case. Counsel submits that though certain opportunities were granted to the petitioner for leading evidence, but the same [2025:RJ-JP:43429] (2 of 5) [CRLMP-7767/2022] could not be submitted by the petitioner on account of the circumstances beyond his control, therefore, a last opportunity be granted to the petitioner subject to the payment of cost to the complainant. 3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the complaint submitted by the complainant against the accused-petitioner has been lying pending before the Court below since last more than 9 years, and on several occasions, a last opportunity was granted to the petitioner to lead evidence subject to the payment of cost, but on every occasion, the petitioner failed to produce evidence in his defence. Counsel submits that the sole object of the petitioner is to delay the disposal of the complaint submitted by the respondent- complainant, hence, interference of this Court is not warranted. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 5. Perusal of the record indicates that a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 has been submitted by the complainant against the petitioner in the year 2016 and several opportunities were granted to the petitioner for leading his evidence in his defence and some of the occasions, cost was also imposed, but the evidence was not lead by the accused-petitioner. The accused-petitioner was found to be absconding on 04.05.2019, hence, his bail bonds were forfeited and thereafter, he surrendered before the trial Court on 07.02.2020. [2025:RJ-JP:43429] (3 of 5) [CRLMP-7767/2022] 6. It appears that the sole object of the petitioner is to delay the disposal of the complaint submitted by the complainant, that is why, whenever opportunity was granted to the petitioner, the same was not availed by him for the reasons best known to him. 7. But at the same time, this fact cannot be overlooked that fair trial is the object of criminal procedure and the right to lead evidence and cross-examination is a part of the right to fair trial which every person has in the spirit of right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. If last opportunity is not granted to the petitioner, subject to payment of suitable amount of cost to the complainant, the petitioner would be deprived of his right to lead evidence in his defence. 8. In view of the above, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Natasha Singh Vs. CBI (State) reported in 2013 (5) SCC 741 has held in Paras 15 and 16 as under:- “15. The scope and object of the provision is to enable the court to determine the truth and to render a just decision after discovering all relevant facts and obtaining proper proof of such facts, to arrive at a just decision of the case. Power must be exercised judiciously and not capriciously or arbitrarily, as any improper or capricious exercise of such power may lead to undesirable results. An application under Section 311 CrPC must not be allowed only to fill up a lacuna in the case of the prosecution, or of the defence, or to the disadvantage of the accused, or to cause serious prejudice to the defence of the accused, or to give an unfair advantage to the opposite party. Further, the additional evidence must not be received as a disguise for retrial, or to change the nature of the case against either of the parties. Such a power must be exercised, provided that the evidence that is likely to be tendered by a witness, is germane to the issue involved. An opportunity of rebuttal however, must be given to the other party. The power conferred under Section 311 CrPC must therefore, be invoked by the court only in order [2025:RJ-JP:43429] (4 of 5) [CRLMP-7767/2022] to meet the ends of justice, for strong and valid reasons, and the same must be exercised with great caution and circumspection. The very use of words such as "any Court", "at any stage”, or "or any enquiry, trial or other proceedings", "any person" and "any such person" clearly spells out that the provisions of this section have been expressed in the widest possible terms, and do not limit the discretion of the Court in any way. There is thus no escape if the fresh evidence to be obtained is essential to the just decision of the case. The determinative factor should therefore be, whether the summoning/recalling of the said witness is in fact, essential to the just decision of the case.” 16. Fair trial is the main object of criminal procedure, and it is the duty of the court to ensure that such fairness is not hampered or threatened in any manner. Fair trial entails the interests of the accused, the victim and of the society, and therefore, fair trial includes the grant of fair and proper opportunities to the person concerned, and the same must be ensured as this is a constitutional, as well as a human right…...” 9. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, one last and final opportunity is granted to the petitioner to produce evidence in his defece with the following terms and conditions which are as follows:- i. The petitioner would pay cost of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant before the next date. ii. The petitioner would implant 21 shady plants in their vicinity in public area. The aforesaid process would be carried over by them within a period of one week from today and he is further directed to look after these plants till final disposal of the petition. iii. The petitioners would submit the photographs of these plants before the trial Court to show that the condition No.ii imposed by this Court has been duly complied by him. [2025:RJ-JP:43429] (5 of 5) [CRLMP-7767/2022] 10. The reasons for passing this present order directing the petitioners to plant 21 shaddy plants 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 oxygen-rich environment. 11. It is made clear that in case, the petitioner fails to comply with the aforesaid terms and conditions within the above stipulated time, no further opportunity would be granted to the petitioner. 12. It is expected from the trial Court to record the evidence of the petitioner on the next date and if because of paucity of time, it is not possible for the trial Court to do the needful, then a short date be fixed thereafter and all possible endeavours would be made to expedite the trial of the case as the matter is pending before the trial Court since last more than 9 years, i.e, 2016. 13. With the aforesaid observation, the instant petition stands disposed of. All applications (pending, if any) also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma /74