APPLN.907-10 - 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 907 OF 2010 CFL Capital Financial Services Ltd. ...Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents *** Mr. B. A. D’Lima i/b M/s. D’Lima & Associates, for the Applicant. Mr. P. S. Hingorani, APP for Respondent No.1. Mr. A. B. Vagyani, for Respondent No.2. *** CORAM: V. M. KANADE J. DATE : AUGUST 24, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and respondent No.2. The applicant is aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Magistrate on 28-10-2009, and has filed this application under S. 482 Cr.P.C. By the said order, the learned Magistrate was pleased to dismiss the application filed by the applicant under S. 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling the P.W. 1 and seeking leave of the Court to file additional affidavit of evidence along with additional documents. The learned counsel APPLN.907-10 - 2 - appearing on behalf of the applicant submitted that while searching the old record and files, the applicant found registered postal packets of the statutory notice sent to accused Nos. 1 and 2. He further submitted that no prejudice would be caused if the applicant is permitted to bring on record this additional document which is the best evidence in the case for the purpose of proving service of statutory demand notice. He submitted therefore that in the interest of justice, the learned trial Court ought to have allowed the application. 2. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submitted that the complaint was filed in the year 1995 and the cross examination of PW 1 is completed in the year 2008. He submitted that 14 years have elapsed after filing the complaint and that the applicant had used various tactics to harass the accused. At the belated stage the application was made for adding the wife of the accused and his father who had already expired. Further it is submitted that an application under S. 311 Cr. P. C. could not be entertained if the intention was to fill up the lacuna in the prosecution case. 3. In my view, there is substance in the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2. The proceedings under S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are of a summary nature and the Act APPLN.907-10 - 3 - envisages that the criminal case should be disposed of as far as possible within six months. In the present case, fourteen years have elapsed and statements under S. 313 of Cr.P.C. of the accused have already recorded. The trial Court under these circumstances, in my view, is justified in rejecting the application filed by the applicant under S. 311 Cr. P. C. In my view, no case is made out for interference in the aforesaid order. Hence, the criminal application is dismissed. [ V. M. KANADE J.]