Accused’s right to lead defence evidence is a fundamental component of a fair trial.

The respondent filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, alleging the applicant failed to repay a loan of Rs. 2,00,000/- after a cheque issued for the same was dishonored

After the complainant's evidence was recorded, the trial Court fixed the matter for defence evidence. The applicant failed to appear personally, citing medical ailments and submitting an application under Section 317 Cr.P.C. for exemption

On 06.09.2023, the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Rewa, closed the applicant's right to lead defence evidence

This order was subsequently affirmed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa, in revision on 09.11.2023

The applicant moved the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to set aside these orders

1. Whether the trial court and revisional court erred in closing the applicant's right to lead defence evidence despite the submission of medical grounds for absence.

2. Whether the denial of an opportunity to produce defence evidence amounts to a violation of the right to a fair trial.

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, concerning the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice

The right of an accused to adduce defence evidence is a "valuable right forming part of a fair trial"

Section 317 Cr.P.C. regarding inquiries and trials held in the absence of the accused

The High Court observed that while the trial court may not have been satisfied with the medical explanation provided, the permanent closure of defence evidence is a severe consequence that should only be a last resort after affording reasonable opportunity

The Court reasoned that the revisional court failed to assess whether a short adjournment would have prevented serious prejudice to the accused's defence

It was noted that the applicant intended to examine witnesses regarding the circumstances of the cheque's possession, which is material to the adjudication

The Court determined that granting one final opportunity would not cause substantial prejudice to the complainant but would prevent irreparable loss to the applicant, ensuring the fairness of the trial

The High Court set aside the orders dated 06.09.2023 and 09.11.2023. The petition was allowed, granting the applicant one final opportunity to produce and examine defence witnesses on a date to be fixed by the trial Court, with the caveat that no further unnecessary adjournments be sought