IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION (C-482) No. 715 of 2011 Yogesh Kumar Verma S/o Late Sri K.S.Verma R/o T-8 F, Railway Colony Jhanda Ground Hardwar, P.S. Kotwali Hardwar, District Hardwar ………………............Petitioner Versus Har Prakesh Kanda S/o Sri Ratan Dass Kanda R/o B-66, Shastri Nagar, Jawalapur, District Hardwar ………….........Respondent Shri Sanjeev Singh, Advocate, present for the petitioner. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard. (2) By means of this petition, moved under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner has sought quashing of the order dated 2 13.10.2010, passed by IVth Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)/ Judicial Magistrate, Hardwar, in Criminal Complaint Case No. 268 of 2005 Har Prakesh Kanda vs. Yogesh Kumar Verma, relating to offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Also, the order dated 18.05.2011, passed by revisional court (Sessions Judge, Hardwar) in Criminal Revision No. 82 of 2011, is challenged. (3) Brief facts of the case are that, respondent Har Prakesh Kanda filed a criminal complaint against the present petitioner Yogesh Kumar Verma, relating to offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, in the year 2005. After recording of the prosecution evidence adduced on behalf of the complainant statement of the accused (present petitioner) was recorded under section 313 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, as many as six dates were given to the accused (present petitioner) for adducing defence evidence, but he did not adduce the same. In the circumstances, the Magistrate rejected the adjournment application vide 3 impugned order dated 13.10.2010, aggrieved by which the present petitioner filed the revision before the Sessions Judge, and the same was also dismissed with special costs of ` 5,000/. (4) Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, and after going through the impugned orders, and other papers on record, this court finds no illegality in the order passed by the Magistrate (trial court) whereby adjournment application/application for time to adduce the defence evidence was rejected. Sub section (3) of section 143 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, requires that every trial shall be conducted as expeditiously as possible, and an endeavour shall be made to conclude the trial within six months from the date of filing of the complaint. It is clear from the papers on record that the criminal complaint was filed way back in the year 2005. As many as six dates were given for adducing defence evidence. In the circumstances, this court is of the view that the trial court has not erred in law in dismissing the application moved by the present petitioner on 4 13.10.2010. Also, so far as dismissal of revision by the Sessions Judge is concerned against aforesaid order, their appears no illegality. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, imposition of special costs of ` 5,000/- by the revisional court appears to be uncalled for. (5) In the above circumstances, this petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C., is summarily disposed of affirming the order passed by the Magistrate,refusing to give more dates for defence evidence, and also the order passed by Sessions Judge, so far as the revision is dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, and for the reasons as discussed above the order imposing the special costs of ` 5,000/- by the revisional court vide order dated 18.05.2011, in Criminal Revision No. 82 of 2011 is set aside, (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt.10.08.2011 N.P 5