CRM-M No. 28758 of 2010 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh CRM-M No. 28758 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 28.5.2010 Sanjay Singhal ......Petitioner Versus Parmod Kumar Goel and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.SKS Bedi, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** SABINA, J. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C. for short) for setting aside the order dated 5.6.2010 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Ambala Cantt, rejecting the application of the petitioner to lead further evidence in criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that CRM-M No. 28758 of 2010 (O&M) 2 initially the trial Court had passed the summoning order, whereby all the accused were ordered to be summoned. Aggrieved by the same, accused Nos. 1 to 6 filed a revision petition and the same was allowed by the learned Sessions Judge and the learned Magistrate was directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. In these circumstances, the application filed by the petitioner-complainant under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for permission to adduce additional evidence was liable to be allowed. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves dismissal. Section 311 Cr.P.C. reads as under:- “Power to summon material witness, or examine person present: Any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and re-examine any person already examined; and the Court shall summon and examine or recall and re- examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case.” As per the above provision, the Court at any stage of trial may summon any person as a witness or recall and re-examine any person already examined if it is necessary for the just decision of the case. CRM-M No. 28758 of 2010 (O&M) 3 Learned Sessions Judge, in para 7 of the order dated 9.1.2010 (Annexure P-3), has observed as under:- “In the entire complaint, there is not even a word as to who was signatory drawer of the cheque. There is not even a word in the entire complaint as to whether accused No.7 was a partnership firm or a sole proprietary concern or what was its status. There is not even a word in the entire complaint as to who were the persons responsible for running the affairs of accused No.7. There is not even a word in the entire complaint that petitioner No.1, who was summoned as accused, was signatory/drawer of the cheque. There is not even a word as to how wife, son, daughters and son-in-law of petitioner No.1 were liable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is apparent that the impugned order has been passed with closed eyes and without any application of mind. Judgments Vipul Kumar Mittal vs. M/s Varishtha Leasing (I) Ltd., 2006 (2) Criminal Court Cases 243 (Delhi, Poonam Mahajan vs. Mohan Lal Swara and Anr. 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 266 (J&K), M/S S.B. & T International Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashra & Anr. 2006 (4) Civil Court Cases 86 (Bombay) and Harsukhbhai Lakshmanbhai vs. State of Gujarat, 2002(1) Civil Court CRM-M No. 28758 of 2010 (O&M) 4 Cases 221 (Gujarat) have no applicability to the facts and circumstances of the case as in all the judgments, it has consistently been held that in case of offence by a company/ partnership firm, only persons responsible for running the affairs of company/ firm are liable and not all the directors/ partners. Therefore, none of the judgment is of any help to the complainant. Rather they are against the complainant.” Learned Sessions Judge vide the said order further allowed the revision petition and ordered the trial Court to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for permission to lead the additional preliminary evidence. Learned trial Court in the impugned order has held as under:- “After hearing the learned counsel for the complainant-applicant and perusing the record, I am of the opinion that the complainant on 10.4.2006 adduced preliminary evidence and on the basis of which summoning order dated 10.4.2006 was passed. The documents sought to be produced by way of additional preliminary evidence are stated to be not in possession of the complainant at that time, despite due diligence but not even a single word has been mentioned by the CRM-M No. 28758 of 2010 (O&M) 5 complainant in his preliminary evidence about the aforesaid documents. Further, by way of additional preliminary evidence the complaint wants to aver that accused No.7 is a partnership firm having three partners namely Sh.Parmod Kumar Goel, Sh.Prajapati Vithen Ram Bhai and Sh.Guruparshad Dina Nath Sharma, who are its working partners and that the cheque in dispute Ex.P# bears signatures of its above named partners. The reasons is that due to inadvertence, it could not be stated in the affidavit Ex.P1 of the complainant in preliminary evidence. In the considered opinion of this Court the same cannot be showed as it would amount to amendment of the affidavit Ex.P1 tendered in preliminary evidence. In view of the above circumstances, it appears that the present application has been filed after taking into consideration the observation made by the court in revision vide order dated 9.1.2010, just to fill up the lacuna to the case of the complainant, which in the considered opinion of this Court is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, finding no merits the application stands dismissed.” The reasons given by the trial Court while dismissing the application for permission to lead additional evidence are sound CRM-M No. 28758 of 2010 (O&M) 6 reasons. The petitioner cannot be allowed to fill up the lacuna in his case. No ground for interference in the impugned order is made out. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. (SABINA) October 11, 2010 JUDGE anita