Cheque-Bounce Complainant Gets No Further Chance To Present Evidence After Missing Restored Opportunity: Uttarakhand HC

In brief

The question

1. Whether the trial court’s rejection of the applicant’s second application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. disclosed an error warranting interference under Section 528 B.N.S.S.

The court held

The Court held that no case for interference under Section 528 B.N.S.S. was made out

It also directed

dismissed the application challenging the order dated 19 August 2026.

No order as to costs was made.

01Facts

The applicant, complainant in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, sought to challenge the Judicial Magistrate’s order dated 19 August 2026 rejecting his application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for a further opportunity to adduce evidence.

¶ 3–6, 10

His evidence had initially been closed after his non-appearance; the trial court later restored his opportunity on an earlier Section 311 application, but he again failed to appear.

¶ 3–6, 10

After the accused’s statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded and the matter reached final hearing, the applicant filed a second application, relying on medical ailments.

¶ 3–6, 10

The trial court rejected it, prompting this application under Section 528 B.N.S.S.

¶ 3–6, 10

02Issues

i.1. Whether the trial court’s rejection of the applicant’s second application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. disclosed an error warranting interference under Section 528 B.N.S.S.

¶ 3, 7, 12

ii.2. Whether the applicant had shown sufficient grounds for a further opportunity to adduce evidence after failing to avail an opportunity previously restored by the trial court.

¶ 10–11

03Law Applied

Section 311 Cr.P.C. confers discretion to summon, examine, recall or re-examine a witness; the power must be exercised where the evidence appears essential to the just decision of the case, but it is not to be used routinely to grant repeated opportunities without sufficient justification

¶ 11

Under Section 528 B.N.S.S., the High Court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction where an impugned order warrants interference; absent patent illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error, interference is not justified

¶ 12

No judicial precedents were cited.

Provisions in the judgment · 5 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 251 Section 311 Section 313

04Reasoning

The trial court had already restored the applicant’s opportunity to adduce evidence following his first failure to appear, but he did not avail himself of that opportunity.

¶ 10–12

The proceedings then advanced to the recording of the accused’s Section 313 statement and final hearing.

¶ 10–12

In these circumstances, the applicant’s assertion of medical ailments did not, without sufficient justification, warrant another opportunity.

¶ 10–12

The High Court therefore found no patent illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the trial court’s rejection of the application.

¶ 10–12