IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 14 of 2007 Chandra Singh Bisht S/o Sri Laxman Singh Bisht R/o Police Line, Police Station Kotwali Tehsil and District Pithoragarh. ...…………. Revisionist Versus 1. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pithoragarh, Uttaranchal. 2. Neeraj Bhatt S/o Sri Nityanand Bhatt R/o G.I.C. Road, Pithoragarh Tehsil and District Pithoragarh. ...…………. Respondents Mr. Amit Kapri, Advocate holding brief of Mrs. Pushpa Joshi, Advocate for the revisionist. Mr. B.S. Parihar, Advocate for respondents 2. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2) This revision is directed against the order dated 22.01.2007, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pithoragarh, in Criminal Complaint Case No. 780 of 2006, whereby the opportunity to adduce defence evidence is closed by the trial court. 3) Brief facts of the case are that criminal complaint case No. 91 of 2006, was filed by respondent No. 2 2 Neeraj Bhatt against the revisionist Chandra Singh Bisht, relating to offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and one punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C. After examining the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C., and witnesses under Section 202 of Cr.P.C., accused / revisionist appears to have been summoned in the aforesaid criminal complaint case. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was adduced on behalf of the complainant. From the record it appears that prosecution evidence was recorded by the trial court, where after charge was framed against the accused / revisionist. There after, witnesses were further examined under Section 246 of Cr.P.C. After the prosecution evidence is closed, the statement of the accused / revisionist was recorded by the trial court under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The accused was allowed to adduce evidence in defence. He got adduced evidence of D.W. 1, D.W. 2 and D.W. 3. However, he wanted further time to adduce evidence of one more witness, but even after getting opportunities the accused / revisionist failed to adduce evidence of further witnesses and continued to seek adjournments. Vide impugned order dated 22.01.2007, the Chief Judicial Magistrate Pithoragarh, closed the evidence of the defence, and directed the case to be listed for final hearing, against which this revision has been filed. 4) Learned counsel for the revisionist prays that only one more opportunity may be given to the accused / 3 revisionist to adduce evidence of his last witness. To this request learned counsel for respondent No. 2 Neeraj Bhatt (complainant) has no objection. 5) Therefore, with the consent of the parties, this revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 22.01.2007, is set aside. The parties are directed to appear before the trial court on 26th of April 2010. On said date the accused / revisionist undertakes that he will produce the last witness to be examined in defence, where after the trial court may proceed further with the trial and decide the case, within a period of one month. If the remaining defence witness is not produced on 26.04.2010, the Magistrate may proceed to hear the arguments of the case, and pronounce the judgment. (Both Urgency Applications No. 3446 of 2009 as well 864 of 2010 stands disposed of). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. March 11, 2010. H. Negi 4