IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-31399 of 2009 (O & M) Date of Decision: September 30, 2011 Anil Jaidka .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS Balbir Singh .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. B.S. Bhalla, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Jonny Goyal, Advocate, for Mr. H.S. Brar, Advocate, for the respondent. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. Gist of the issue is reflected in order dated 11.7.2011. The order reads as under:- The petitioner is in petition aggrieved against an order dated 19.08.2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Moga whereby the application for permission to lead secondary evidence has been dismissed. Criminal Revision against the said order has also been dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Moga vide order dated 26.10.2009. The petitioner is facing proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 for issuing a cheque of Rs. 5,90,000/- in favour of the present respondent. In an attempt made by the petitioner by moving an application for permission to lead secondary evidence to raise a plea that he was a partner in the firm which was dissolved in the year 2000 and the bank account was accordingly also closed in the same year, pertaining Crl. Misc. No. M-31399 of 2009 [2] to that firm. The cheque in question was issued in the year 2004 and respondent wanted to enhance his case that this cheque was fabricated and could not have been issued in view of the fact that the firm stood already dissolved. The learned trial court declined the prayer on the ground that ingredient of Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was not established. In revision also the prayer was rejected. Now the petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 has been filed. No one has come present on behalf of the petitioner. On examination, of the matter, the fact transpires that the petitioner is confronted with two hurdles. This petition is incompetent under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 which has to be treated as second revision which power cannot be exercised unless some gross violation of law or injustice has been shown. The facts of the case reveal that the petitioner had availed as many as 5 opportunities to lead his defence evidence and subsequently he filed this application for adducing secondary evidence which was obviously an attempt to delay the proceedings and was also rightly dismissed. The petitioner had failed to discharge his onus to satisfy the court with regard to the ingredients of Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 so as to warrant the grant of such a permission. Since no one is present on behalf of the petitioner, in the interest of justice the matter is adjourned to 30.09.2011. In the meantime, the interim directions are hereby vacated and the intimation be sent to the learned trial court regarding passing of this order.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to dispute the fact that the arguments addressed before the Trial Court for leading secondary evidence, as also before the revisional Court, are being reiterated in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It has also not been disputed that five opportunities to lead evidence in defence had already been taken by the petitioner. 3. No ground for showing indulgence under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is made out. 4. The petition is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) September 30, 2011 JUDGE avin Crl. Misc. No. M-31399 of 2009 [3] 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?