The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed that the right to present defense evidence is a fundamental component of a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. In a case where the trial court closed the defense’s opportunity to lead evidence due to repeated adjournments caused by judicial unavailability, the Court intervened to prevent a miscarriage of justice. The judgment underscores that procedural delays attributable to the court cannot be visited upon the accused.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Gopal Panchal, is accused in SCNIA No. 499/2021 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ujjain, for an offense under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The prosecution alleged issuance of a dishonored cheque. The petitioner intended to examine one defense witness, Rajendra Maheshwari, to rebut the prosecution’s case.
Key Facts
- The trial for defense evidence commenced on 21.03.2025
- The next date was fixed for 25.04.2025
- On both 21.03.2025 and 25.04.2025, the Presiding Officer was on leave, and no evidence was recorded
- The matter was next listed on 23.06.2025; on this date, the petitioner’s counsel requested time to present evidence due to personal reasons and was granted an adjournment to 15.07.2025 with a final opportunity to lead defense evidence
- On 15.07.2025, the defense counsel again sought adjournment to examine the witness; the request was denied and the opportunity to present defense evidence was closed
- The petitioner proposed to examine Rajendra Maheshwari as his sole defense witness
- The petitioner offered to bear all expenses for the defense evidence
Procedural History
- 21.03.2025: First date for defense evidence; court adjourned due to judge’s leave
- 25.04.2025: Second date for defense evidence; court adjourned due to judge’s leave
- 23.06.2025: Third date; petitioner’s counsel sought adjournment for personal reasons; trial court granted adjournment to 15.07.2025 as final opportunity
- 15.07.2025: Fourth date; defense counsel requested adjournment to examine witness; request denied; opportunity to lead defense evidence closed
- 23.06.2025: Order passed closing defense evidence (impugned)
- 15.07.2025: Order reaffirming closure of defense evidence (impugned)
- 02.04.2026: Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 and Section 482 of Cr.P.C. before the Madhya Pradesh High Court
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought setting aside of the orders dated 23.06.2025 and 15.07.2025, and an opportunity to produce defense evidence, specifically the testimony of Rajendra Maheshwari. The petitioner undertook to pay costs for delay.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the trial court could close the opportunity to present defense evidence solely because the accused failed to produce it on a date fixed after multiple adjournments caused by judicial unavailability, and whether such closure violates the right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the closure of defense evidence was unjustified because the delays were primarily attributable to the court’s unavailability on 21.03.2025 and 25.04.2025. The adjournment sought on 23.06.2025 was for personal reasons and was granted with a clear understanding that 15.07.2025 was the final opportunity. The subsequent request on 15.07.2025 was not dilatory but necessitated by logistical constraints. The right to present defense evidence is a statutory and constitutional right, and its denial without fault on the accused’s part amounts to a denial of justice. The petitioner offered to pay costs and proceed immediately.
For the Respondent
The State did not file a separate written submission. The trial court’s order implied that the petitioner had been granted multiple opportunities and that the final adjournment on 15.07.2025 was a reasonable limit. The court viewed the request as an attempt to delay proceedings, particularly since the petitioner had not applied for summons to the witness earlier.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the procedural history and found that the petitioner had not wilfully delayed the trial. The first two adjournments were due to the court’s own unavailability, which cannot be attributed to the accused. The adjournment on 23.06.2025 was sought for personal reasons and was granted with a final date. The request on 15.07.2025 was not an abuse of process but a legitimate attempt to comply with the court’s directive.
"The trial court could have imposed adequate cost and adjourned the matter providing last opportunity to cross-examine the witness which is necessary for complete and fair trial."
The Court emphasized that the right to present defense evidence is not a privilege but a constitutional imperative under Article 21. The denial of this right, especially when the delay is not attributable to the accused, strikes at the heart of fair trial jurisprudence. The Court rejected the notion that the accused must bear the burden of court-induced delays. It further noted that the trial court’s failure to consider less drastic alternatives - such as imposing costs or issuing a summons - was an error in judicial discretion.
The Court held that the closure of defense evidence was arbitrary and disproportionate. The petitioner’s willingness to pay costs and proceed immediately demonstrated good faith. The Court found that the interests of justice required the opportunity to be restored, subject to strict conditions.
The Verdict
The petition was allowed. The orders dated 15.07.2025 and 23.06.2025 were set aside. The petitioner is directed to deposit Rs. 2,000/- as cost before the trial court within 7 working days. The petitioner shall produce the defense witness Rajendra Maheshwari on the date fixed by the trial court, without summons. This shall be the only opportunity to adduce evidence. No further adjournment shall be granted unless exceptional exigency arises. In case of non-compliance, the trial shall proceed from the stage as on 15.07.2025.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Judicial Delays Cannot Be Penalized on the Accused
- Practitioners must argue that adjournments caused by court unavailability, holidays, or administrative delays cannot be used to deny the accused their right to present defense evidence
- Any order closing defense evidence must explicitly distinguish between delays caused by the accused versus the court
- Courts must record reasons before denying adjournments, especially when the accused has not previously abused the process
Cost as an Alternative to Closure
- Courts must consider imposing costs as a proportionate remedy for delay, rather than outright closure of defense evidence
- The petitioner’s offer to pay costs in this case was a critical factor in the Court’s decision
- This establishes a new norm: cost imposition is the default remedy for minor delays; closure is reserved for deliberate abuse
Defense Evidence Is Not a Formality
- The right to examine a defense witness is not a procedural formality but a substantive right under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and Article 21
- In Section 138 NI Act cases, where the defense often hinges on proving lack of liability or absence of debt, excluding evidence can be fatal
- Practitioners should immediately move for restoration of defense evidence where closure occurs without fault on the accused’s part
