Accused entitled to one final opportunity to lead defence evidence under Section 315 Cr.P.C. to avoid prejudice.

The respondent filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act alleging that the petitioner failed to repay a loan of Rs. 6,00,000/- after a cheque (No. 081760) was dishonored due to insufficient funds

During the trial, the petitioner was granted permission under Section 315 Cr.P.C. to testify as a defence witness, but failed to appear on the scheduled dates due to the demise of his father-in-law and his counsel’s family medical emergency

Consequently, the Trial Court closed the right to lead defence evidence on 19.11.2025 and dismissed a subsequent application for recall on 12.12.2025

The Revisional Court affirmed this closure on 19.02.2026

The petitioner challenged these orders before the High Court under Section 528 of BNSS/Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

1. Whether the Trial Court and Revisional Court erred in closing the petitioner's opportunity to lead defence evidence despite the explanation of unavoidable circumstances

2. Whether the denial of an opportunity to examine oneself as a defence witness under Section 315 of Cr.P.C. causes terminal prejudice to the accused

The Court primarily applied Section 315 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), which permits an accused person to be a competent witness for the defence

It also considered Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) / Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. regarding the High Court's inherent powers to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice

The Court relied on the legal principle that the right to lead defence evidence is a fundamental component of a fair trial and that a party should not suffer for the unavoidable circumstances of their counsel

The Court observed that while the petitioner had been granted permission to testify, the failure to record evidence was supported by "genuine difficulties," specifically a bereavement in the family and the illness of the counsel’s spouse

The High Court reasoned that the right to lead defence evidence is an "important right" and its denial would cause significant prejudice to the accused's case

While acknowledging the need to prevent unnecessary delays in trial proceedings, the Court determined that the interest of justice outweighed the procedural lapse

It concluded that a single, final opportunity should be provided to ensure the petitioner is not condemned unheard, provided it is treated as a "last indulgence" to prevent further stalling of the Case No. 1228/2017

The Court ordered the petitioner to appear on the next fixed date to complete the evidence, explicitly stating that no further adjournments would be permitted for this purpose

The petition was disposed of with directions to the Trial Court to proceed in accordance with the law thereafter