The Punjab and Haryana High Court has reaffirmed that the right of an accused to present a defence is fundamental to a fair trial under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. In a case involving prolonged litigation under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the Court set aside orders closing defence evidence, emphasizing that procedural lapses alone cannot justify denial of this constitutional right unless deliberate abuse is established.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
A criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was filed by M/s Advance Technological Products against M/s Delta Electronics and its directors, including the petitioner Kapil Gupta, in case No. NACT No. 7626-2018 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Faridabad. The complaint alleged issuance of a dishonoured cheque for Rs. 12,50,000 dated 18.09.2017, which was presented on 20.10.2017 and returned unpaid on 22.10.2017. Legal notice was issued on 05.11.2017, and the complaint was filed on 15.12.2018.
Key Facts
- The trial commenced in 2019 and reached the stage of defence evidence by 2025
- Complainant’s evidence closed on 26.08.2025
- Petitioner entered defence on 15.11.2025 and was partly examined
- Two defence witnesses were examined on 15.11.2025 and 04.12.2025
- The petitioner sought to summon two additional witnesses, including Mr. Sajid Ali, who could not appear due to personal circumstances
- No prior direction or deadline was issued by the trial court for deposit of diet money for summoning witnesses
- On 08.01.2026, the trial court refused to summon remaining witnesses citing non-deposit of diet money
- On 15.01.2026, one witness was examined and another discharged
- On 06.02.2026, the trial court closed defence evidence and fixed the matter for final arguments
- Proceedings against co-accused Mr. Kanik Gupta were stayed by this Court on 10.12.2025, and his defence evidence had not commenced
Procedural History
- 18.09.2017: Cheque issued
- 20.10.2017: Cheque presented for payment
- 22.10.2017: Cheque returned unpaid
- 05.11.2017: Legal notice sent under Section 138 NI Act
- 15.12.2018: Complaint filed before JMFC, Faridabad (NACT No. 7626-2018)
- 26.08.2025: Complainant’s evidence closed
- 15.11.2025: Petitioner examined as witness
- 04.12.2025: First defence witness examined
- 08.01.2026: Trial court refused to summon remaining defence witnesses for non-deposit of diet money
- 15.01.2026: One witness examined; another discharged
- 06.02.2026: Trial court closed defence evidence and fixed for final arguments
- 10.12.2025: Stay granted by Punjab & Haryana HC on proceedings against co-accused Mr. Kanik Gupta
- 16.03.2026: Petition filed under Section 528 BNS, 2023 before Punjab & Haryana HC
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the orders dated 08.01.2026 and 06.02.2026, restoration of the right to lead defence evidence, and direction to the trial court to permit completion of defence testimony.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a trial court may close defence evidence and proceed to final arguments without granting a reasonable opportunity to the accused to examine all witnesses, particularly when no specific deadline for deposit of diet money was previously communicated, and proceedings against a co-accused remain stayed.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the trial court’s refusal to summon witnesses was procedurally flawed, as no prior direction or time frame for depositing diet money was issued. The petitioner had already examined two witnesses and demonstrated willingness to produce others. The closure of defence evidence violated the right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Further, since proceedings against co-accused Mr. Kanik Gupta were stayed, bifurcating the trial was legally impermissible.
For the Respondent
The respondent contended that the petitioner had been granted multiple opportunities over seven years to lead evidence and had adopted dilatory tactics. Diet money was due under Rule 10 of the Criminal Procedure Rules, and failure to deposit it despite repeated adjournments justified the trial court’s discretion to close evidence. The complaint had been pending since 2018, and the petitioner’s conduct warranted finality.
The Court's Analysis
The Court acknowledged the prolonged pendency of the case since 2018 but emphasized that delay by the accused does not automatically justify denial of the right to lead defence evidence. The Court observed:
"The right of an accused to lead defence evidence is an important facet of a fair trial and such opportunity should ordinarily not be curtailed unless it is shown that the party is deliberately abusing the process of the Court."
The Court noted that the petitioner had already examined two witnesses and sought to summon two more, including one whose absence was due to personal circumstances. The trial court had not issued any prior direction specifying a deadline for deposit of diet money, rendering the refusal to summon witnesses arbitrary. Furthermore, the closure of defence evidence while proceedings against a co-accused remained stayed created an unjust bifurcation of the trial.
The Court rejected the notion that the petitioner’s conduct amounted to deliberate abuse, finding no evidence of mala fide or intentional obstruction. However, it recognized the need to prevent further delay and imposed a strict condition: a single, final opportunity to complete defence evidence within two fixed dates.
The Verdict
The petition was allowed. The orders dated 08.01.2026 and 06.02.2026 were set aside. The petitioner was granted one final opportunity to conclude defence evidence on 19.03.2026 and 20.03.2026. All remaining witnesses must be present on these dates. The petitioner must deposit costs of Rs. 10,000 before the trial court prior to availing this opportunity. No further adjournment shall be permitted. If defence evidence is not concluded by 20.03.2026, the trial court may proceed to final arguments and judgment.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Defence Evidence Cannot Be Closed Arbitrarily
- Practitioners must argue that closure of defence evidence without a prior clear direction on diet money or time-bound compliance violates Article 21
- Courts must distinguish between genuine hardship and deliberate delay before denying the right to lead evidence
- The burden lies on the prosecution to prove abuse of process, not on the accused to anticipate procedural technicalities
Final Opportunity Must Be Clear and Conditional
- Courts may grant one final opportunity to complete defence evidence, but only with strict conditions: fixed dates, no further adjournments, and cost imposition
- This balances the accused’s right to fair trial with the public interest in expeditious justice
- Failure to comply with such conditions must result in automatic closure of evidence without further hearing
Co-Accused Proceedings Must Be Harmonized
- When proceedings against co-accused are stayed, the trial court cannot proceed to final arguments against one accused alone
- Trials involving multiple accused must be treated as a single unit unless severance is legally ordered
- Bifurcation without judicial sanction renders the proceedings procedurally defective
