2026:UHC:2312 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS CRLR No. 162 of 2026 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Saurabh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the revisionist. 2. Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned A.G.A. with Mr. Vijay Khanduri and Mrs. Rangoli Purohit, learned Brief Holders for the State. 3. The instant criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionist Deep Sharma S/o Ishwari Datt Sharma against the order dated 23.01.2026 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge Second Nainital in Session Trial No. 39 of 2021 ‘State vs. Deep Sharma’, whereby, the defence of the revisionist, who is facing trial for the offence punishable under section 304B of IPC, has been closed. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that in this particular case the Session Trial was commenced in the year of 2021 and the evidence of prosecution was closed on 24.09.2025 and thereafter 16.10.2025 was fixed for defence evidence, however on that day his counsel sought an adjournment and the same was granted and the matter was posted on 06.11.2025. On that day the presiding officer was on leave, consequently, the matter was posted on 04.12.2025, however, the adjournment was sought, which was granted on the payment of cost of Rs. 500/- and thereafter the matter was posted on 23.01.2026 for defence evidence and on the same date the list of documents were filed, which were taken on record but on the same date the defence evidence was closed. 5. It is argued by Mr. Pandey that the defence evidence of the revisionist has been closed on the request of his counsel though as a matter of fact in respect of the documents, which were taken on record by the Trial Court on 23.01.2026 he has to examine witnesses for his defence. He submits that closing of defence evidence of the revisionist will cause irreparable loss since the revisionist will be deprived to adduce his defence evidence. 2026:UHC:2312 6. On the other side, learned A.G.A. submits that the revisionist adopted a delaying tactics since he is on bail which is evident from the fact that his counsel sought an adjournment, which was granted on 04.12.2025 on payment of cost of Rs. 500/-. 7. Be that as it may, as it appears from the order sheet the prosecution evidence was closed on 24.09.2025 and thereafter the matter was listed before the Trial Court on 16.10.2025, 06.11.2025, 04.12.2025, 08.12.2025 and then on 23.01.2026 and on one day the presiding officer was on leave and surprisingly on 23.01.2026 the list of documents were taken on record but on the same date his defence evidence was closed. 8. Apart from this, learned counsel for the revisionist submits that for prosecution about five years have been given to complete their evidence but the defence evidence has been closed only within four months from the date when the prosecution completed their evidence. 9. Admittedly, the revisionist is facing the trial for the offence punishable under section 304B and, therefore, sufficient opportunity should be given to him to defend himself and in such view of the matter, the order passed by the Second Additional District and Session Judge, Nainital, dated 23.01.2026 is not justified and cannot sustained. 10. Accordingly, the instant criminal revision is allowed and the order passed by the Additional District and Session Judge dated 23.01.2026 is set aside with the direction to the Trial Court to give opportunity to the revisionist to complete his defence evidence for which he may be given atleast two months time. 11. It is made clear that if within two months from the date of receipt of this order the revisionist failed to complete his defence evidence, then in such an eventuality, no further opportunity shall be given to the revisionist and the Trial Court will proceed with the Trial and expedite the same as early as possible. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 01.04.2026 PR 2026:UHC:2312