


Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Community
Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts
Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users
Free resources
Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors
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
1 / 4
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
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.
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.
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.