[2026:RJ-JP:12174] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 6611/2019 Ratan Lal Verma S/o Shri Nathu Lal, R/o 84-A, Arjun Nagar, Near Gopalpura By-Pass, Jaipur (Raj.) Second Address: Shri Ratan Lal Verma C/o New R.K. Drycleaners, 150/2, Shiv Colony, Near Transformer, Kishan Marg, Barkat Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Accused/Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P. 2. Nitesh Chandra Vashistha S/o Shri Bhagwat Prasad Vashistha, R/o A-12, Deepak Colony, Barkat Nagar, Jaipur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vijendra Pareek For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary-PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 23/03/2026 1. By way of filing the instant petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 27.08.2019, passed by the Special Metropolitan Magistrate (N.I. Act Cases) No. 19, Jaipur Metropolitan by which the application submitted by the accused- petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has been rejected and the opportunity for producing his defence evidence has been declined to the petitioner. 2. As per the contents of the petition, the petitioner is facing trial for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'the NI Act') in criminal complaint No. 22618/2014 submitted by the complainant- respondent. The petitioner submitted an application under Section [2026:RJ-JP:12174] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-6611/2019] 311 Cr.P.C. for his examination in the witness box to give his defence evidence, however, the same has been rejected by the Court below by passing the impugned order. 3. Perusal of the order indicates that after closure of evidence of complainant-respondent, the case was posted for defence evidence in the year 2014. Thereafter, the accused-petitioner remained absconding for a considerable period of time, and more than eight opportunities were granted to him, however, he failed to appear on any of the aforesaid occasions hence his evidence was closed. 4. Considering the factual aspect of the matter, it is clear that the sole object of the petitioner was to delay the disposal of the complaint submitted by the complainant-respondent and that is why the petitioner remained absconding for considerable amount of time and he failed to appear on the several opportunities granted to him by the Trial Court for the purpose of producing his defence evidence. The Trial Court has not committed any error in passing the impugned order but looking to the fact that important questions of law and facts are involved in the instant matter, hence in the interest of justice, one last and final opportunity is granted to the petitioner to examine himself in the witness box to produce his defence evidence, subject to the following terms and conditions:- (I) The petitioner would pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant respondent within a period of three weeks from today. (II) The petitioner would plant 25 shady plants in their vicinity in public area. The aforesaid process would be [2026:RJ-JP:12174] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-6611/2019] carried over by him within a period of two weeks from today and he is further directed to look after these plants. (III) The petitioner 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. 5. The reasons for passing this present order directing the petitioner to plant 25 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 and oxygen-rich environment. 6. In case, the petitioner complies with the aforesaid conditions within the above stipulated time, the Trial Court is directed to grant him one last and final opportunity by fixing a short date to record his defence evidence and in case, due to paucity of time, his evidence is not recorded on the same day then by fixing a further short date. 7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the criminal misc. petition, stay application as well as all applications (pending, if any) stand disposed of. 8. In case, the complaint has already been decided by the Trial Court then this order will not have any bearing. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/Puneet/17