23.09.2026 Sl. No.DL14 Court No. 29 Asraf, A.R.(Ct.) In the High Court at Calcutta Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction Appellate Side Case No. CRR 424 of 2026 with CRAN 3 of 2026 In Re : An application under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. -AND- In the matter of : LAXMAN PRASAD AGARWAL ……Petitioner For the Petitioner : Mr. Shounak Mondal Mr. Sumit Biswas …Advocates For the Opposite Party : Mr. Soumya Basu Roy Chowdhuri …Advocate 1. The petitioner is aggrieved with the order dated 05.01.2026 by which the Court below has rejected the petitioner’s prayer made under Section 284 of the Cr.P.C. for appointment of a commissioner to record the deposition of the accused person, in a proceeding under Section 138/141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 2. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order is absolutely bad in the eyes of law. Learned Trial Court has erred in observing that issuance of commission is permissible only in cases where the witness is infirm, bedridden, acutely ill or a pardanishin lady, thereby reading into Section 284 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, restrictions which are not contemplated by the statute. Section 284 of the Cr.P.C. is an enabling provision meant to advance the cause of justice and to facilitate recording of evidence where the personal attendance of a witness cannot be procured without undue hardship, inconvenience or prejudice and the same cannot be narrowly construed as has been done in the impugned order. 3. He further submits that Section 284(1) of the Cr.P.C. is merely illustrative and not exhaustive and, therefore, the provision under Section 284 of the Cr.P.C. can definitely be invoked in the present case. The petitioner’s case squarely falls within the expression “cannot be procured without an amount of delay, expense or inconvenience” as occurring in the said section, inasmuch as the petitioner is admittedly suffering from acute stammering problem since birth, which directly impairs his ability to depose orally in open Court, particularly from the witness dock and thereby seriously cause prejudices to his right to effectively lead defence evidence. He further submits that the examination of the petitioner under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was also conducted through written statement in view of the provision under Section 313(5) of the Cr.P.C. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that in the aforesaid backdrop of the case, the Trial Court’s observation was not based on reasoning and, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party opposed such prayer contending that only to drag the present proceeding, the instant application has been initiated and therefore it has got no merit to be considered by this Court. The order impugned does not call for interference by this Court, invoking this Court’s jurisdiction under any of the provision of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 6. I have considered submissions made on behalf of both the parties. On perusal of the order impugned, it appears that the accused person had taken a plea before the court below that since birth he is suffering from acute stammering problem and cannot adduce evidence properly on dock and furthermore he is a patient of severe diabetic and chronic hypertension and thereby he is unwilling to adduce his evidence on dock. No medical document was annexed with the abovementioned illness which has been taken as a ground by the petitioner. However, it appears from the order impugned that the Court below has taken care of his prayer and also the direction made by this High Court on 27th November, 2025 in CRR 4060 of 2025. 7. The Court specifically held that the petitioner is not suffering from any ailment which may prevent the petitioner to appear before the Court or to adduce evidence. It is also not clear what petitioner wanted to mean by making submission before the Trial Court that he is unable to adduce “proper evidence” before the Court. Page 4 of 6 8. It is needless to say that two conditions are necessary for invoking jurisdiction under section 284 of Cr.P.C. which are:- (i) Ends of justice i.e. the evidence must be material (ii) Inability to procure the witnesses attendance without an unreasonable delay, expenses or inconvenience 9. In Dharmanand Pant Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in AIR 1957 SC 594 it was observed that witnesses in a criminal case should not be examined on commission except in extreme cases of delay, expense or inconvenience and in particular the procedure by way of interrogatories should be resorted in unavoidable situation. The discretion to be used by the court is a judicial one and should not be lightly or arbitrarily exercised. 10. In the present case petitioner did not produce a single scrap of paper to show any unavoidable situation which can prevent the petitioner to face the dock. 11. It is well settled that the power under section 284 of Cr.P.C. is discretionary and should be sparingly exercised in case of real hardship as commission in a criminal case is most unsatisfactory course. The demeanor of the witness cannot be seen and the witness is subject to irrelevant and harassing cross-examination. Therefore, examination on commission under section 284 Cr.P.C. is an exception and no commission should be issued unless the case is fully covered by law. Page 5 of 6 12. Last but not the least, the High Court’s inherent power or revisional power does not authorize the court to interfere with the orders of the court below as a matter of routine. Since in the instant case Trial court in it’s wisdom has come to a conclusion that the present situation does not warrant the examination of accused on commission, assigning reasons, the court below has not committed any mistake nor his order suffers from perversity. If the inherent power or revisional power is used where it is not proper to exercise, it will become counterproductive and such power may lose it’s vitality. Since there is nothing to show that the order impugned passed by court below is either illegal or irrational or suffering from procedural impropriety, I find nothing to interfere with the order impugned. 13. The jurisdiction to interfere by this Court is applicable where the order impugned suffers from illegality or impropriety or perversity. Merely because the alleged inability of the petitioner can be interpreted in a different way is no ground for interference by this Court invoking revisional jurisdiction. In the present context, I do not find any illegality or perversity or impropriety in the order impugned and therefore it does not call for interference by this Court. 14. In view of above, CRR 424 of 2026 along with connected application being CRAN 3 of 2026 stand dismissed. 15. The Trial Court will make best endeavour to expedite the trial strictly in terms of the order passed by this Court vide order dated 27th November, 2025 in CRR 4060 of 2025 without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties and to conclude the same at the earliest. 16. All parties shall act on the basis of server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. 17. Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities. ( Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J. )