Himachal Pradesh High Court
Dheeraj Sharma vs Ashok Kumar And Another on 22 January, 2025
1
( 2025:HHC:3008 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Criminal Revision No.63 of 2025
Date of Decision : 22.01.2025
Dheeraj Sharma …… Petitioner
Versus
Ashok Kumar and another ……Respondents
Coram:
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Vacation Judge
Whether approved for reporting?1For the petitioner : Mr. Imran Khan, Advocate.
For the respondents : Nemo.
Bipin Chander Negi, Vacation Judge (oral)
The present criminal revision petition has been preferred
against order dated 21.12.2024, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Dalhousie, District Kangra, in Case NIA Act No.42 of 2023, appended
along with present petition as Annexure P-1, whereby the defence of the
present petitioner/accused has been closed.
2. Heard counsel for the petitioner, perused the record appended
along with present petition and the impugned order.
3. From a perusal of the order sheets appended along with the
present petition, it is evident that after conclusion of the evidence of the
complainant, the statement of the petitioner/accused was recorded under
Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on 09.08.2024. In the
statement so made by the petitioner/accused under Section 313 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner/accused had denied the allegations
1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2
( 2025:HHC:3008 )
leveled against him and had claimed to lead defence evidence. Hence, on
09.08.2024, the petitioner/accused was directed to take steps within a week
for leading evidence. The matter thereafter was posted for 01.10.2024.
4. On 01.10.2024, the petitioner/accused was not present. On his
behalf, an application for exemption was filed. The same was considered
and allowed. The counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/accused
sought more time for leading defence evidence. The same was allowed in
the interest of justice and the matter was now posted for 11.11.2024. Since
in terms of order dated 09.08.2024, no steps had been taken by the
petitioner/accused for leading defence evidence, therefore, on 01.10.2024,
when more time was sought for leading defence evidence, the same was
granted on self responsibility and the matter was posted for 11.11.2024.
5. On 11.11.2024, yet again, the petitioner/accused was not
present. An application for exemption was filed on his behalf. The same was
considered and allowed. Here again, the counsel for the petitioner/accused
sought more time for leading defence evidence on self responsibility. Time,
as prayed, was allowed. The opportunity granted was by way of an
exceptional last opportunity and the petitioner/accused was to produce the
defence evidence on his own responsibility, on 21.12.2024.
6. Yet again, on 21.12.2024 the petitioner/accused was not
present. He filed an application for exemption, which was considered and
allowed. Once again, despite having availed an exceptional last opportunity
on the previous date, i.e., 11.11.2024, on 21.12.2024, no defence evidence
was present. The Court, in the facts and attending circumstances of the
case, closed the right of the petitioner/accused to lead defence evidence.
3
( 2025:HHC:3008 )
7. Repeated adjournments by the counsels in mechanical and
routine manner affects timely dispensation of justice. As a consequence
whereof, trust and confidence of the litigant in the justice delivery system is
shaken. In order to create an efficient justice dispensation system and
maintain faith in rule of law, Courts are expected to be diligent and take
timely action. There is a need to change the work culture and to get out of
adjournment culture, which has to a great extent shattered the confidence
and trust of litigants in the justice delivery system.
8. Granting of repeated adjournments in routine manner and how
it affects the justice delivery system came to be considered before the
Hon’ble Apex Court in Ishwarlal Mali Rathod vs. Gopal and Others, 2021
(12) SCC 612 , wherein, it has been held as under:-
“9. Today the judiciary and the justice delivery system
is facing acute problem of delay which ultimately affects
the right of the litigant to access to justice and the
speedy trial. Arrears are mounting because of such
delay and dilatory tactics and asking repeated
adjournments by the advocates and mechanically and
in routine manner granted by the courts. It cannot be
disputed that due to delay in access to justice and not
getting the timely justice it may shaken the trust and
confidence of the litigants in the justice delivery system.
Many a times, the task of adjournments is used to kill
Justice. Repeated adjournments break the back of the
litigants. The courts are enjoying upon to perform their
duties with the object of strengthening the confidence
of common man in the institution entrusted with the
administration of the justice. Any effort which weakens
the system and shake the faith of the common man in
the justice dispensation has to be discouraged.
4
( 2025:HHC:3008 )
Therefore the courts shall not grant the adjournments in
routine manner and mechanically and shall not be a
party to cause for delay in dispensing the justice. The
courts have to be diligence and take timely action in
order to usher in efficient justice dispensation system
and maintain faith in rule of law.
10. We are also aware that whenever the trial courts
refused to grant unnecessary adjournments many a times
they are accused of being strict and they may face
displeasure of the Bar. However, the judicial officers shall
not worry about that if his conscience is clear and the
judicial officer has to bear in mind his duties to the litigants
who are before the courts and who have come for justice
and for whom Courts are meant and all efforts shall be
made by the courts to provide timely justice to the litigants.
11. Take an example of the present case. Suit was for
eviction. Many a times the suits are filed for eviction on the
ground of bonafide requirements of the landlord. If plaintiff
who seeks eviction decree on the ground of personal
bonafide requirement is not getting the timely justice and
he ultimately gets the decree after 10 to 15 years, at times
cause for getting the eviction decree on the ground of
personal bonafide requirement may be defeated. The
resultant effect would be that such a litigant would lose
confidence in the justice delivery system and instead of
filing civil suit and following the law he may adopt the other
mode which has no backing of law and ultimately it affects
the rule of law. Therefore, the court shall be very slow in
granting adjournments and as observed hereinabove they
shall not grant repeated adjournments in routine manner.
12. Time has now come to change the work culture and
get out of the adjournment culture so that confidence and
trust put by the litigants in the Justice delivery system is not
shaken and Rule of Law is maintained.
5
( 2025:HHC:3008 )
9. No doubt, an accused has a right to a fair trial. Similarly,
right to lead defence evidence is a valuable right available to the
petitioner/accused. However, from the facts narrated herein above, it is
clearly evident that in the case at hand, the sole motive of the
petitioner/accused seems to be that of delaying the proceedings. The
petitioner/accused has been grossly negligent in leading defence
evidence. The conduct of the petitioner/accused in the case at hand is
one of subverting the justice and not sub-serving the cause of justice.
10. Remedy available under the Negotiable Instruments Act to
the complainant/respondent, in the case at hand, is a speedy efficacious
remedy. However, dilatory tactics on the part of the petitioner/accused
have unnecessarily delayed adjudication of the complaint filed by the
respondent/complainant.
11. In view of the above facts and attending circumstances of the
case narrated herein above, I see no reason to interfere with impugned order
dated 21.12.2024, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Dalhousie, District Kangra, in Case NIA Act No.42 of 2023, whereby the
defence of the present petitioner/accused has been closed. Accordingly, the
present petition is dismissed, so also, pending miscellaneous application(s),
if any.
(Bipin Chander Negi)
January 22, 2025 (KS) Vacation Judge
[ad_1]
Source link