Criminal Revision No.1519 of 2006 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.1519 of 2006 Date of decision : 05.12.2008 Punjab State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd. .....Petitioner Versus Amit Rice Traders and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. Brijeshwar Singh, Advocate for Mr. Govind Goel, Advocate for the appellant. S. D. ANAND, J. The petitioner had filed an application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. which came to be allowed by the learned Trial Magistrate by order dated 15.1.2003, however, that order was reversed by the learned Sessions Judge in revision which came to be allowed, vide order dated 9.11.2005. The petitioner/complainant filed a complaint under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the respondents/accused on an allegation that a cheque, issued by the latter in lieu of a pre-existing liability, bounced on account of insufficiency of funds and the latter did not pay up inspite of the effecting of the service of a statutory notice upon them in that behalf. In the course of the trial, the petitioner/complainant applied for the leave of the Court to produce and prove circular dated 2.7.1999 authorising “the Branch Manager (Bachittar Singh Grewal) to institute and verify the complaint on behalf of the Markfed against the accused. Criminal Revision No.1519 of 2006 -2- **** Production of evidenced in this regard is necessary in the interest of justice and for just decision of the case.” The application was opposed as being a belated affair in view of the fact that evidence of the petitioner/complainant had already been closed. The plea raised thereby was that the petitioner/complainant could not be allowed to fill up a lacuna in the case. It was also averred that Bachittar Singh Grewal had been examined on 18.11.1997 much prior to issuance of circular dated 2.7.1999. The plea, in the context, was that since the circular was not in existence at the time of recording of evidence, Bachittar Singh Grewal could not claim to have been authorised by that certification to file the impugned complaint on behalf of the petitioner/applicant. Learned Trial Magistrate did not deal with the above indicated contention raised by the respondents/accused but proceeded to allow the application by observing that “the production and prove of circular dated 2.7.99 is very necessary for just decision of the case.” In revision, however, learned Sessions Judge reversed the order by making the following observations:- “By means of the application u/sec. 311 Cr.P.C. the complainant wanted to produce and prove on record the circular dt. 2.7.1999. It has been incorporated in the order, itself, that the copy of that circular has been placed on the reocrd, vide which Bachittar Singh has been authorised to file the present complaint. At the time of arguments, no such circular dt. 2.7.1999 giving such an authority to Bachittar Singh was found, nor the parties could refer to any such document in the records of the trial court. How the trial court incorporated that fact in the order, is just a mystery. After this application Criminal Revision No.1519 of 2006 -3- **** was allowed, the complainant examined Tarsem Singh, Assistant Law Officer (PW4), who proved on record certified copy of letter dt. 2.7.1999, Ex.PW4/A. Nothing dt. 23.02.1999, Ex.PW4/B and the sanction regarding authorization Ex.PW4/F. None of those documents can be referred to as the circular of the department. No doubt, the letter, certified copy of which has been proved on record as Ex.PW4/A, is dated 2.7.1999, but the same is not a circular. That is simply a letter, written by Chief Manager to all the District Managers of the Markfed in the State of Punjab, mentioning therein that in few of the cases, the complaints on account of dis- honouring of cheques, were filed through branch managers at their own level and that the said act has been regularized by the Managing Director. The act of the branch officers in filing the complaints could have been rectified by the complainant, only by passing a resolution to that effect. No such resolution has been proved on the record, nor, there is any such document to show that the Managing Director had delegated the power of signing and fiing of the complaints to any other officer. The permission was granted by ld. Trial court only for producing and proving this circular dt. 2.7.1999 and it committed an illegality by allowing the other documents to be proved by means of additional evidence. That is an irregularity committed by the trial court. In these circumstances, the order under revision cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside and the additional evidence, produced in pursuance of that order, is liable to be washed of Criminal Revision No.1519 of 2006 -4- **** the record.” The reasoning recorded by the learned Sessions Judge is relatable to the material obtaining on the file and is correct. The petition is found to be devoid of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. December 05, 2008 (S.D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE