The Bombay High Court has reaffirmed that the right to adduce defence evidence is a fundamental aspect of fair trial, even when delays arise from reliance on official records. In a significant ruling under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the Court set aside orders closing defence evidence, emphasizing that procedural rigidity must yield to substantive justice when the delay is attributable to the unavailability of documents in government custody.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Dansingh Umraosingh Rawat, is the accused in Criminal Case No. 580/SW/2017 pending before the Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, 38th Court, Ballard Pier, Mumbai. The case involves allegations under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and the applicant sought to adduce documentary evidence held by the Income Tax Department to substantiate his defence.
Key Facts
- The applicant intended to produce documents from the Income Tax Department to establish his financial position and rebut prosecution allegations
- These documents were not in his personal custody and required formal requisition and processing by the Department
- The applicant made repeated requests for time to obtain these records during the trial
- The prosecution closed its evidence on an earlier date, and the trial proceeded to the defence stage
- The applicant was granted multiple adjournments to procure the documents, but the process was delayed due to administrative procedures within the Income Tax Department
Procedural History
- 2017: Criminal Case No. 580/SW/2017 initiated
- Prior to 18.09.2024: Multiple adjournments granted to the applicant for securing documents from the Income Tax Department
- 18.09.2024: Additional Metropolitan Magistrate passed Order (Exhibit-1) closing defence evidence, citing failure to adduce evidence despite sufficient opportunities
- 27.02.2025: Applicant filed Application (Exhibit-40) seeking recall of the order dated 18.09.2024; the Magistrate rejected it (Exhibit-40 Order), holding that sufficient opportunities had been granted and no justification existed for reopening
- 16.06.2026: Criminal Application No. 438 of 2025 filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 before the Bombay High Court challenging both orders
Relief Sought
The applicant sought quashing of the orders dated 18.09.2024 and 27.02.2025, and a direction to permit him to adduce defence evidence, particularly the documents held by the Income Tax Department.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the trial court could close defence evidence and reject an application for reopening solely on the ground of delay, when the delay was attributable to the time required to obtain official documents from a government department, and whether such closure violated the accused’s right to a fair trial under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
Mr. Bhatt, learned Counsel for the applicant, submitted that the documents sought were not in the applicant’s possession but were held by the Income Tax Department, which required formal requisition and processing. He argued that the delay was neither intentional nor contumacious, and that denying the applicant an opportunity to adduce such evidence would amount to a denial of natural justice. He relied on the principle that the right to present a defence is a constitutional guarantee under Article 21 and must be protected even in procedural matters.
For the Respondent/State
Ms. S. M. Yadav, Additional Public Prosecutor, contended that the applicant had been granted multiple adjournments over an extended period and had failed to utilize them effectively. She argued that the Magistrate’s decision to close evidence was within the bounds of judicial discretion and that allowing reopening at this stage would prejudice the prosecution and cause undue delay in the trial.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of the delay and the source of the documents. It noted that the applicant had not wilfully neglected his duty to adduce evidence, but had been constrained by the administrative process of obtaining records from a statutory authority. The Court emphasized that Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 empowers the High Court to correct errors of procedure that result in a failure of justice.
"The right to adduce evidence is not a mere formality; it is the very essence of a fair trial. When the delay in producing documents is due to the time required to obtain them from a government department, and not due to any laches or neglect on the part of the accused, the court must act in the interest of justice."
The Court distinguished this case from instances where accused persons deliberately delay proceedings. It held that the Magistrate’s mechanical application of the principle of finality, without considering the nature of the documents and the reason for delay, was legally unsustainable. The Court further observed that the prosecution had not demonstrated any prejudice that would arise from permitting the applicant to lead evidence at this stage.
The Verdict
The applicant succeeded. The Bombay High Court quashed and set aside the orders dated 18.09.2024 and 27.02.2025 passed by the Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, 38th Court, Ballard Pier, Mumbai. The Court directed that the applicant be granted an opportunity to adduce defence evidence, including the documents from the Income Tax Department, within four weeks from the date of this order. The trial shall proceed accordingly, with no order as to costs.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Delay Due to Official Records Does Not Bar Defence Evidence
- Practitioners must argue that delays caused by the time required to obtain documents from government departments (e.g., Income Tax, Registrar of Companies, Police Records) are not attributable to the accused’s negligence
- Courts must distinguish between contumacious delay and legitimate administrative delay when deciding whether to reopen evidence
- Applications under Section 528 BNS can be effectively invoked to correct procedural injustices arising from rigid application of timelines
Fair Trial Trumps Procedural Finality
-
The right to adduce evidence is not extinguished merely because the trial has progressed to the stage of final arguments
-
The burden is on the prosecution to demonstrate actual prejudice if reopening is sought; mere passage of time is insufficient
-
Trial courts must exercise discretion with a view to substantive justice, not procedural expediency
-
Always file a detailed affidavit explaining the nature of the documents, the steps taken to obtain them, and the reasons for delay
-
Request adjournments in writing and preserve all correspondence with government departments as evidence of due diligence
-
Cite State of Haryana v. Bhagwan Das and K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India to reinforce the constitutional dimension of the right to present a defence
