Docsity
Docsity

Prepare for your exams
Prepare for your exams

Study with the several resources on Docsity


Earn points to download
Earn points to download

Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan


Guidelines and tips
Guidelines and tips

CITATIONS RELATED TO LAW, Study notes of Civil Law

it is a citation of supreme court and very useful to advocates as well as students mainly law graduates and post graduates

Typology: Study notes

2023/2024

Uploaded on 08/30/2024

nagesh-2
nagesh-2 🇮🇳

3 documents

1 / 4

Toggle sidebar

This page cannot be seen from the preview

Don't miss anything!

bg1
Hi nagesh You are using a Free Trial - Expire on 29 Jul 24, Click
Here to Subscribe to Upgrade your Plan!
2010 0 Supreme(HP) 558
2011 2 AICLR 727 ; 2011 0 AIR(HP) 30 ; 2011 0 CrLJ 1217 ; 2010 2 HimLR 767 ;
2011 3 ICC 147 ; 2010 0 LatestHLJ 694 ; 2011 3 RCR(Cri) 327 ; 2010 3 ShimLC
310
HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER SINGH, J.
KARAM SINGH
Petitioner
VERSUS
RAM KRISHAN SHARMA
Respondent
Cr. M. M. O. No. 150 of 2009
Decided on 23-03-2010.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that
the court may close defense evidence if a party abuses
the process by failing to present evidence despite being
given multiple opportunities to do so.
Subject: Criminal Law - Negotiable Instruments Act
Act Referred :
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE : S.482, S.313
NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT : S.138
Section 138 - Negotiable Instruments Act - Court closes defense
evidence after multiple opportunities - Abuse of process and unfair
to the opposite party
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was given multiple opportunities to adduce defense
evidence in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act. Despite repeated chances, the petitioner failed to
present any evidence, leading to the closure of the defense
evidence by the court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had been given ample time and
opportunities to present defense evidence, but failed to do so,
resulting in an abuse of process and unfairness to the opposite
Page No. 1 of 4
pf3
pf4

Partial preview of the text

Download CITATIONS RELATED TO LAW and more Study notes Civil Law in PDF only on Docsity!

Hi nagesh You are using a Free Trial - Expire on 29 Jul 24, Click Here to Subscribe to Upgrade your Plan! 2010 0 Supreme(HP) 558 2011 2 AICLR 727 ; 2011 0 AIR(HP) 30 ; 2011 0 CrLJ 1217 ; 2010 2 HimLR 767 ; 2011 3 ICC 147 ; 2010 0 LatestHLJ 694 ; 2011 3 RCR(Cri) 327 ; 2010 3 ShimLC 310 HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER SINGH, J. KARAM SINGH Petitioner VERSUS RAM KRISHAN SHARMA Respondent Cr. M. M. O. No. 150 of 2009 Decided on 23-03-2010.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that

the court may close defense evidence if a party abuses

the process by failing to present evidence despite being

given multiple opportunities to do so.

Subject: Criminal Law - Negotiable Instruments Act Act Referred : CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE : S.482, S. NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT : S. Section 138 - Negotiable Instruments Act - Court closes defense evidence after multiple opportunities - Abuse of process and unfair to the opposite party Fact of the Case: The petitioner was given multiple opportunities to adduce defense evidence in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Despite repeated chances, the petitioner failed to present any evidence, leading to the closure of the defense evidence by the court. Finding of the Court: The court found that the petitioner had been given ample time and opportunities to present defense evidence, but failed to do so, resulting in an abuse of process and unfairness to the opposite

party. The court dismissed the petition and directed the trial court to proceed with the case and decide it finally within a specified timeframe. Issues: The main issue was the petitioner's failure to adduce defense evidence despite multiple opportunities granted by the court. Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the petitioner's prolonged delay in presenting defense evidence, which was deemed as an abuse of process and unfair to the opposite party. Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the trial court was directed to proceed with the case and make a final decision within a specified timeframe. Advocates: Advocates appeared : For the Petitioner: Mr. R.L. Chaudhary , Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Anup Rattan , Advocate. JUDGMENT Surinder Singh, J.(Oral)-This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order dated 10.3.2008, passed by the learned Chief Judicial magistrate in case No. 6-1/2004 titled Ram Krishan Sharma versus Karam Singh, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, whereby the defence of the petitioner was closed by the order of the court, after granting various opportunities.

  1. Heard and gone through the record. A perusal of the record shows that after closure of the prosecution evidence, petitioner herein was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 28.6. 2007. Thereafter, the petitioner intended to lead evidence in defence and the case was adjourned for 20.8.2007, on which date, neither petitioner nor his witnesses were present. Thereafter the case was adjourned for 13.9. for his evidence. Even on 13.9.2007, petitioner absented himself and an application was moved for his exemption, which was allowed and the case was adjourned for 14.11.2007 for his evidence. The petitioner did not take any step and even on 14.11.2007 his evidence was not present. Again, he sought time and the case was adjourned for 3.1.2008. Learned counsel for the complainant/respondent objected to further adjournment on the ground that the accused was delaying the matter on one pretext or the other. After hearing the parties, learned trial Court passed a detailed order which is reproduced hereunder:- “3.1.2008.

defence evidence. Thus, he deserves no further concession in the matter because of his own act and conduct. He was able to drag the litigation for three long years and the Court had shown undeserved leniency. Therefore, granting one more opportunity to him, as now requested by the learned counsel for the petitioner, would be abuse of process and unfair to the opposite party. Therefore, the petition is dismissed. Interim order granted on 18.11.2009 is vacated.

  1. Parties to appear before the learned trial Court on 5.4.2010.
  2. Learned trial court is directed to proceed in the matter forthwith and decide it finally before the end of April, 2010.
  3. Record of the learned trial Court be sent back forthwith so as to reach the court on or before the date fixed.