IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. M. M. O. No. 151 of 2008 Date of decision: 4 .5. 2009 R.S. Kaushal …..Petitioner Versus M/s Deepak Wood Industries ……Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 . For the petitioner: Mr. Vikram Thakur, Advocate. For the respondent Mr. Virender Singh Chauhan, Advocate. Surinder Singh, J. (Oral) By way of the present petition moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused-petitioner has assailed the order of the learned trial Court dated 13.10.2008 whereby the application moved by the respondent under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was allowed to place on record the bills for supply of wood to the accused and to lead additional evidence to prove the said documents only by re-examining the complainant, as it being necessary for the just decision of the case. According to Shri Vikram Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, the application could not have been allowed by the learned trial court at a belated stage when the case was fixed for 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?. yes. - 2 - final arguments and further that the said documents were not essential for the just decision of the case. Therefore, the exercise of the jurisdiction by the learned trial court was uncalled for. Contra Shri V.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned order and pointed out that the complainant in his cross-examination has admitted that the cheque in question was kept as a security for the supply of the wood by the respondent herein to the petitioner, thus only the issues qua wood were required to be proved to facilitate the court to come to a just decision of the case. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and have carefully gone through the record. In cross-examination CW-3 complainant Sh. Chaman Lal Goel, Proprietor of M/s Deepak Wood Industries has, in fact admitted that the cheque in question was kept as a security for the supply of the goods to him and thereafter, the cheque would have been presented by him for encashment. In view of this clear-cut admission by the petitioner in his statement, in my opinion, the learned trial court rightly came to the conclusion that the bills in question sought to be placed on record and proved by the complainant are essential - 3 - for the just decision of the case and the application cannot be branded as “an attempt to fill in the lacuna” in view of Supreme Court in U.T. of Dadra & Haveli & another vs. Fatehsinh Mohansinh Chauhan 2006 (3) Apex Court Judgments 263………(S.C). Keeping in view of the aforesaid facts and the admission of the respondent herein, in my considered opinion, the said bills sought to be proved in the re-examination of the complainant are essential for the just decision of the case so as to reach the truth by the learned trial court. Accordingly, I find no error in the impugned order passed by the learned trial court as such the petition is dismissed. Parties are hereby directed to be present before the learned trial court on 27.5.2009. May 4, 2009 (Surinder Singh),J. (cm)