Delhi court allows woman to lead defence in cheque bounce case

Underlining that a “single opportunity” does not constitute a “sufficient opportunity” under the law, a Delhi court has set aside a magistrate’s order that closed a woman’s right to lead defence evidence in a cheque bounce case.

Additional Sessions Judge Shefali Barnala Tandon also said that the Constitution guarantees a fair trial, which includes a reasonable opportunity of defence for the accused.

In an order dated July 22, the court said, “Law is well settled that a fair trial is the foundation of justice and without affording an accused the opportunity to present a defence, the trial is rendered a mere formality rather than a judicial process.”

It noted that the revision petition was filed against the magisterial court order of August 2025, closing the opportunity of the accused or revisionist, Manju Devi, to lead defence evidence in a complaint filed by one Sunita Devi under the Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act provision.

According to the revisionist, the complainant’s evidence was closed in March 2025, and the matter was adjourned to July 30 for her to file a list of witnesses and an application to examine herself. On that date, however, the magistrate observed that no steps had been taken by the accused and immediately closed her right to lead defence evidence.

Setting aside the order, the court said it is apparent that the revisionist was denied her basic right to defend herself. It said, “Article 21 (protection of life and personal liberty) of the Constitution guarantees a fair trial which includes a reasonable opportunity for the accused to defend himself/herself. A single opportunity does not constitute ‘Sufficient Opportunity’ under the law.”

The court also referred to Section 346 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) corresponding to the erstwhile Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), dealing with the “power to postpone or adjourn proceedings.”

It said, “Section 346(2) provides that not more than two adjournments shall be granted at the request of a party except where the circumstances are beyond the control of the party after hearing the objections of the other party, and recording the reasons in writing. Thus, the legislature has restricted the number of permissible adjournments to two.”

In the present case, however, the magistrate had closed the right to lead defence after only one instance of non-compliance, the court noted.

Allowing the plea, the court granted Manju Devi “one last opportunity” to lead her defence evidence.