BANSI LAL BHARDWAJ vs S GANGANDEEP SINGH

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU, KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU

Reserved on 13.10.2026
Pronounced on 22.10.2026
Uploaded on 22.10.2026
Whether the operative part
or full Judgment is pronounced: Full

CRM(M) No. 1058/2025



…..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Bansi Lal Bhardwaj


Through: Mr. Rohit Sharma, Adv.
Q
Vs


S. Gagandeep Singh .…. Respondent(s)

Through: Mr. Himanshu Beotra, Adv.



Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE




JUDGMENT



1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under section 528 of
the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita(BNSS), 2023 seeking quashment of
rd
order dated 16.11.2024 passed by the learned 3 Additional Sessions
Judge, Jammu (hereinafter to be referred as the revisional court) as also
st
order dated 11.09.2023 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1 Class (City
Judge), Jammu (hereinafter to be referred as the trial Magistrate).
2. Vide order dated 11.09.2023 passed by the learned trial Magistrate, the
application of the petitioner/accused for summoning of defence witnesses
except to the extent of three witnesses, has been rejected. The said order
has been upheld by the learned revisional court in terms of order impugned
dated 16.11.2024.
Rakesh Kumar
2026.10.17 07:13
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
4. It appears that the respondent/complainant has filed a complaint against the
petitioner under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in respect
of cheque dated 20.09.2009 for an amount of ₹10,00,000/- drawn on
Jammu Rural Bank, Bohri Patta Jammu. It appears that the
respondent/complainant has concluded his evidence and on 20.04.2019, the
statement of the petitioner/accused under section 342 J&KCr.P.C. was
recorded. While making his statement, the petitioner/accused has opted to
enter his defence by leading evidence to prove his defence that he did not
owe any money to the respondent/complainant.

5. It was stated by the petitioner/accused, in his statement under section 342
J&KCr.P.C. that the complainant is a property dealer and at his instance, he
had persuaded his friends and relatives to sell their lands. He has further
stated that the respondent/complainant sold about 30 kanals of land to his
clients after purchasing the same from his friends and relatives, regarding
which sale deeds were executed. That he is a witness to these sale deeds.
He has further stated that when his friends and relatives came to know that
the complainant had purchased the land from them at the rate of ₹1.46 lacs
per kanal and sold it at the rate of ₹2.30 lacs per kanal, one of his relatives,
Sh. Sham Lal refused to sell his land. He has further stated that the
complainant went to the house of Sh. Sham Lal a number of times,
whereafter, it was decided that the complainant would get back the land
from his clients and that he would pay the money back to them at the rate
of ₹3.00 lacs per kanal. In this regard, a settlement was arrived at between
CRM(M) No. 1058/2025 Page 2 of 6

the parties and in terms of the said settlement, six cheques were issued by
the petitioner/accused but the complainant did not adhere to the terms of
the settlement and he refused to give back the land.
6. In order to prove his aforesaid defense, the petitioner/accused furnished a
list of 19 witnesses and deposited their diet expenses. Most of these
witnesses were sought to be produced to prove the alleged sale
transactions. Learned trial court vide impugned order dated 11.09.2023,
while allowing the petitioner/accused to record statements of two
witnesses, who had already been examined, also permitted him to examine
one out of witness Nos. 18 and 19. Besides this, witness No. 17, Record
Keeper, Income Tax Department was also permitted to be examined. The
application to the extent of other witnesses was disallowed on the ground
that the petitioner/accused has furnished a long list of witnesses, just to
protract the proceedings. The said order has been upheld by the learned
revisional court vide impugned order dated 16.11.2024.
7. The petitioner/accused has challenged both the impugned orders on the
grounds that if he is not allowed to examine his witnesses in defense, it
would amount to infringing his right to a fair trial. It has been submitted
that truncating the list of witnesses would cause prejudice to the defense of
the petitioner.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the
case.
9. At the very inception, it is to be noted that the impugned order passed by
the learned trial Magistrate was challenged by the petitioner by way of a
CRM(M) No. 1058/2025 Page 3 of 6

revision petition and now the present petition under section 528 BNSS has
been filed to challenge the aforesaid two orders, which appears to be a
second revision petition under the garb of invoking inherent powers of this
Court. Sub section (3) of section 438 of the BNSS, which vests revisional
power with the Sessions Judge and the High Court, provides that if an
application under the said provision has been made by any person either to
the High Court or to the Sessions Judge, no further application by same
person can be entertained by either of them, meaning thereby that a second
revision petition against an order passed by inferior criminal court is not
maintainable.

10. The petitioner/accused by filing the present petition under section 528 of
the BNSS is, in effect, invoking the revisional powers of this Court after
having failed in his attempt before the revisional court. In view of the
provisions contained in sub section (3) of section 438 of the BNSS, the
present petition is not maintainable. It is true that the High Court is vested
with inherent powers under section 528 of BNSS to prevent abuse of
process of court or to secure the ends of justice, but the said power cannot
be used to circumvent a bar contained under any other provision of the
Sanhita. On this ground alone, the present petition is not maintainable.
11. Apart from the above, the present petition has been filed belatedly without
explaining the reasons for the delay. The impugned order has been passed
by the learned revisional court on 16.11.2024, whereas the present petition
has been filed on 15.10.2025, which is after about eleven months of the
passing of the impugned revisional order. Even though there is no period of
CRM(M) No. 1058/2025 Page 4 of 6

limitation prescribed within which a petition under section 528 of the
BNSS ought to be filed, yet if a petitioner fails to address convincingly the
reasons for laches and inordinate delay, the Court would not exercise its
jurisdiction under section 528 of the BNSS as such, the petition should be
filed within a reasonable time so that the progress of the case is not
disturbed at the belated stage. A revision petition challenging an order can
be filed within 90 days from the date of order and on that analogy, a period
of 90 days should be treated as a reasonable time to file a petition under
section 528 of the BNSS and if it is filed beyond the period of 90 days, the
petitioner would have to explain the cause of delay. In this regard, I am
supported by the judgment of this Court in Eapen Chakoo vs. Union
Territory of J&K[CRM(M) No. 78/2020, decided on 05.07.2022].
12. In the present case, the petitioner has not furnished any reason much less a
plausible reason for approaching this Court after a period of eleven months
of passing of impugned order by the revisional court. Therefore, this Court
would refuse to entertain the present petition on the ground of delay and
laches .
13. Even on merits, the petitioner/accused does not have a case. As already
stated, the petitioner seeks to prove his defence that there were transactions
with regard to the sale/purchase of land entered into by the
respondent/complainant with some friends and relatives of the
petitioner/accused. These transactions can be proved by the
petitioner/accused by placing on record original or certified true copies of
the sale deeds. An accused is not required to prove his defense beyond
CRM(M) No. 1058/2025 Page 5 of 6

reasonable doubt. He has only to probablise his defense. Therefore, it is not
necessary for the petitioner/accused to produce the executants of the sale
deeds or their marginal witnesses as witnesses to prove his defense. The
petitioner/accused can prove his defence by producing either the original
sale deeds or the certified true copies thereof. There is no necessity for the
petitioner to produce rest of the witnesses listed by him in his application.
The learned trial court is, therefore, right in truncating the said list and
confining it to only those witnesses which are essential for proving the
defense of the petitioner/accused.
14. For all what has been said, analysed and discussed hereinabove, I do not
find any merit in this petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.

(SANJAY DHAR)
JUDGE

Jammu
22.10.2026
Rakesh PS
Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No
Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No
CRM(M) No. 1058/2025 Page 6 of 6