HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.: 66 of 2009 Decided on: 28.8.2009 Satish Chander ………Petitioner. Versus Ashwani Kumar ………Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the petitioner: Mr.Vikas Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr.Y.P. Rana & Mr.B.S. Thakur, Advocates. V.K. Ahuja, J.(Oral): The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No.3, Shimla, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. It is clear from a perusal of the record that the petitioner as complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as against the respondent, who was arrayed _______ 1.Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - as accused in the said complaint. Case was being tried by the learned trial Court. The evidence of the complainant was closed on 22.12.2008 and the case was fixed for the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. for the next date i.e. 8.1.2009, on which date the application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. was filed by the petitioner for additional evidence and to prove some documents. The learned trial Court, after hearing the parties, dismissed the said application. Being aggrieved from the said order, the petitioner has filed the present petition. I have gone through the reasoning given by the learned trial Court. The main reasoning given is that the complainant cannot be permitted to fill up the lacuna in case, when the evidence of the complainant was closed. The evidence of the complainant had been closed on the previous date only and the case has not concluded as yet and no statement of the accused has been recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and the accused is also to lead his defence evidence. The question of admissibility of such document(s) has to be considered by the Court when the documents are produced before it in evidence. In view of the above discussion, I am of the opinion that, for the just decision of the case, the petitioner should be permitted to lead evidence to prove - 3 - documents in question in accordance with law. Therefore, the application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned trial Court is allowed subject to costs of Rs.300/- payable to the respondent. The petitioner shall be given one or at the most two opportunities to prove the documents and lead evidence. However, the petitioner can also take dasti summons, if any, for the service of witnesses. The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. The parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 19 September, 2009 and the learned trial Court shall proceed with the case in view of the observations made hereinabove. Record of the case be sent to the concerned court forthwith, alongwith a copy of this order. Cr.M.P. No.374 of 2009: In view the final disposal of the main petitioner, this application also stands disposed being infructuous. Dasti copy. (V.K. Ahuja), August 28, 2009 Judge. (TILAK)