CRM No. M-31804 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CRM No. M-31804 of 2010 Date of Decision : December 01, 2011 Mohinder Singh .... PETITIONER Vs. Iqbal Rajinder Singh son of S. Jagatar Singh ..... RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH * * * Present : Mr. Mandeep S. Sachdev, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. K.S.Dhillon, Advocate, for the respondent. * * * AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) Prayer in this petition is for quashing the order dated 26.08.2010 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar, vide which application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for leading additional evidence by producing an handwriting expert to prove that the signatures on the back side of the cheque and the body of the cheque were filled in hand of the accused. CRM No. M-31804 of 2010 2 It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that while exercising powers under Section 311 Cr.P.C., the Court can, at any stage, entertain an application for additional evidence and it should not be guided by the principle of delay and should rather give full weightage to the just decision of the case. Referring to Section 311 Cr.P.C., counsel contends that the production of the additional evidence, as prayed for by the petitioner, would be essential for the just decision of the case, therefore, the same should have been allowed by the Court below. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgments of this Court in the cases of Kala Ram vs. State of Haryana, 2006 (3) RCR (Criminal) 562 and Dr. Gurpreet Kaur vs. Appropriate Authority-cum-Senior Medical Officer, 2010 (2) RCR (Criminal) 169. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent submits that the evidence has been led by the complainant to prove and it was known to the complainant and should have at that very stage got that aspect also proved by producing evidence with regard to the fact that the said signatures on the back side of the cheque and handwriting on the body of the cheque were that of the accused-respondent. The complaint was filed in the year 2002 and thereafter, pre-charge evidence was led and the accused was summoned leading to the framing of charge on 06.02.2009. Thereafter, evidence has been led by the complainant-petitioner and on conclusion of the same, the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. also stands recorded. The defence evidence also stands closed on the statement made before the Court and when the case was fixed for final disposal/arguments, the present application has been moved by the complainant. This application has primarily been moved initially to fill up a lacuna, which cannot be, at this belated stage, permitted. The trial Court CRM No. M-31804 of 2010 3 had given cogent and justifiable reasons for dismissal of the application moved by the complainant under Section 311 Cr.P.C., which does not call for any interference by this Court. Counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court dated 21.03.2011 in Crl. Revision No. 277 of 2010 titled as Shakti @ Vijay and others vs. State of Haryana and another. I have heard the counsel for the parties and with their assistance, have gone through the records of the case. There can be no dispute with regard to the contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner that while exercising power under Section 311 Cr.P.C., the Court can, at any stage, entertain such an application and it is the discretion of the Court. The only requirement is that it should exercise its powers where such evidence is essential for the just decision of the case. While doing so, it has also got to look into the aspect that no prejudice is caused to any of the parties. In the present case, as the facts cull out, the complaint was filed in the year 2002. After the preliminary evidence led by the complainant, the accused was summoned. Pre-charge evidence was led leading to the framing of charge on 06.02.2009. Thereafter, in pre-charge evidence, an handwriting expert was produced by the complainant, who, according to the complainant, had proved that the handwriting on the face of the cheque and on the back of the cheque as not that of the complainant. The evidence of the complainant stood concluded and closed. Thereafter, statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. also stood recorded. The statement was made on behalf of the accused closing his defence evidence as well. It is at this stage when the present application under Section 311 Cr. P.C. has been moved for producing yet CRM No. M-31804 of 2010 4 again an handwriting expert with an intention to prove that on the body of the cheque and on the backside of the cheque, the handwriting is that of the accused. This aspect was known to the complainant from the very initiation of the proceedings against the accused. Due care and caution should have been taken by him to prove this essential aspect when he had already examined an handwriting expert. When the complainant has closed his evidence and the statement of the accused stood recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the accused also has closed his defence evidence and the case was fixed for final disposal/arguments, moving of the present application does not appear to be a bona-fide effort, rather an effort on the part of the petitioner appears merely to be with an intention to delay the trial. Cogent and justifiable reasons have been given by the trial Court while rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. No doubt the essence of exercising the power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is that the said evidence is essential for the just decision of the case but the fact cannot be over-looked that this provision cannot be exercised where the intention of the prosecution is to fill up the lacuna, which has been left out. The present lacuna, which is being sought to be filled up by the complainant through this application, cannot be said to be correcting a bona-fide mistake or an oversight on the part of the complainant. The order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar, dated 26.08.2010 (Annexure P-2), therefore, does not call for any interference by this Court. Dismissed. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) December 01, 2011 JUDGE pj