Right to Argue Prevails Over Procedural Delay: Madhya Pradesh High Court Restores Appeal Hearing

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has underscored the primacy of the 'interest of justice' by permitting a petitioner to advance oral arguments in a criminal appeal even after the lower court had closed the right to do so and reserved the case for judgment. This ruling reinforces the judicial principle that procedural lapses should not prematurely extinguish a litigant's right to be heard, especially when the final verdict has not yet been pronounced.

In a petition filed under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., Justice Pramod Kumar Agrawal intervened in a case where the XVI Additional Sessions Judge of Bhopal had closed the petitioner's right to argue in a pending criminal appeal. The High Court noted that although the matter was fixed for judgment, the actual pronouncement had not taken place, providing a narrow window for the court to exercise its inherent powers to ensure a fair trial.

Key Takeaways

Primacy of Substantive Justice

Procedural closures of the right to argue can be reversed if the final judgment has not been pronounced and if such an intervention serves the interest of justice.

Conditional Reopening of Hearings

While restoring the right to be heard, courts may impose costs to balance the inconvenience caused to the opposing party due to delays.

Final Opportunity Mandate

Courts are likely to grant a 'last chance' for oral submissions, but such relief is strictly one-time to prevent the abuse of the legal process and ensure timely disposal.

Court Observations on Natural Justice and Procedure

The High Court carefully examined the status of the proceedings in the lower court. It was observed that while the petitioner had failed to avail earlier opportunities, the non-pronouncement of the judgment allowed for a corrective measure. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "Looking to aforesaid, in the interest of justice, this Court finds it appropriate to grant one opportunity to the petitioner to argue in the said criminal appeal."

The Court has following directions:
"The petitioner is granted one opportunity to advance arguments in Criminal Appeal No. 240/2025 before the learned Appellate Court, subject to payment of costs of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only). The said amount shall be deposited by the petitioner before the learned Appellate Court and shall be paid to the respondent. The learned Appellate Court shall fix a suitable date for hearing the arguments in the said criminal appeal. It is made clear that if the argument is not advanced on behalf of petitioner on the date so fixed by the learned Appellate Court, then no further opportunity shall be granted for the said purpose."

Ratio

In exercise of inherent powers under the B.N.S.S., the High Court may restore a party's closed right to advance arguments in a criminal appeal if the judgment has not yet been delivered, ensuring the right to a fair hearing is upheld, provided such relief is accompanied by costs to the respondent and a strict timeline for compliance.

Background

The dispute originated from an order dated August 11, 2026, passed by the XVI Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal, in Criminal Appeal No. 240/2025. The Trial Court had closed the petitioner’s right to argue the case after he failed to avail the opportunities provided. Subsequently, the matter was fixed for judgment on September 9, 2026, and later rescheduled to September 21, 2026.

The petitioner’s counsel argued that the judgment had not been pronounced yet and requested one final opportunity to present their case in the interest of justice. The petitioner submitted a status report to confirm that the case was still at the judgment stage and no final order had been signed. The High Court, while acknowledging the petitioner's prior failure to argue, exercised its discretion to allow the petition, setting aside the closure of the right to argue subject to the payment of Rs. 3,000 as costs to the respondent.

Case Details:
Case No.: MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 44035 of 2026
Neutral Citation: 2026:MPHC-JBP:74805
Case Title: NITESH KUMAR SAHU Versus BRAJESH PACHOURI
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Shri Rajendra Kumar Raghuwanshi - Advocate

Source: 2026 CaseBase(MP) 23862