Please Log in / Register to access the full text of this judgment and the entire database
(2022) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 17208 = 2023(1) 153
Decided on: 10.11.2022
Present:
Mr. Sumit Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.
None for the respondents.
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 311, 482 – Cheque bounce case – Additional documents by complainant – Petitioner/ complainant moved an application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. for leading further evidence by producing additional documents -- No doubt, the complainant had already closed the evidence -- Purpose of trial is to elicit truth -- Trial should not be fair only to the accused but it should also be fair to the complainant/prosecution -- Petitioner permitted to lead the evidence by way of additional documents.
(Para 1-5)
***
GURBIR SINGH, J. (ORAL) –
1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for setting aside the impugned order dated 06.03.2018 (Annexure P-4) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh, whereby application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner for bringing on record certain necessary documents as additional evidence, has been dismissed.
2. As per office report, respondents No.1 to 3 have been duly served through their counsel in the trial Court, however, no one is present on their behalf.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the respondent, which is pending trial. The petitioner moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for leading further evidence by producing additional documents regarding the details of the payment received in pursuance to the execution of the sale deed. Notice issued to the accused by the complainant on 03.02.2014. On acknowledgment of the notice sent to the Sub-Registrar, the balance sheet regarding the payments so received from the accused was disclosed. The compromise decree was passed in O.S. No.1000/2009 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Nelamangala.
4. No doubt, the complainant had already closed the evidence. The purpose of trial is to elicit truth. The trial should not be fair only to the accused but it should also be fair to the complainant/prosecution. Since other party would get opportunity to rebut the documents which are to be produced/proved, so no prejudice would be caused to the other party.
5. In the light of above, the impugned order dated 06.03.2018 (Annexure P-4) is set aside and the petitioner is permitted to lead the evidence by way of additional documents.
6. Accordingly, the petition is allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited in District Legal Services Authority, Chandigarh.
Petition allowed.
********