Criminal Misc. No. M-21119 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-21119 of 2010 Date of Decision: 26.07.2010 Krishan Kumar Bedi partner of M/s Bedi International (India), Campa Cola Road, Dhandari Kalan, G.T. Road, Ludhiana. ... Petitioner Versus Smt. Surinder Paul Kaur wife of Sh. Mehar Singh, Sole Proprietor of M/s G.S. Ryat Steel Traders Adjoining the Bank of Punjab Ltd., Gill Road, through her general attorney Sh. Mehar Singh son of Sh. Gurdial Singh. ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. Yogesh Goel, Advocate, for the petitioner. SHAM SUNDER, J. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing the order dated 28.05.2010, passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana, in Criminal Complaint No. 360/2 dated 02.07.02 (Annexure P3), vide which, the application, under Section 311 Cr.P.C., filed by the petitioner (accused) for additional evidence, was dismissed, and, the order dated 10.07.2010, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, in Criminal Revision No. 30 dated 01.07.2010 (Annexure P4), vide which, the revision-petition, was dismissed, has been filed by the petitioner. Criminal Misc. No. M-21119 of 2010 2 2. Surinder Paul Kaur, complainant, filed a complaint, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter to be called as the 'Act' only). The petitioner, was summoned, to face trial for the said offence. After the statement of the petitioner, under Section 313 Cr.P.C., was recorded, and his defence evidence was closed, he moved an application, under Section 311 Cr.P.C., for additional evidence, which was dismissed, by the trial Court, vide order dated 28.05.2010. 3. Feeling aggrieved, a revision-petition, was filed, in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, which also met the same fate. 4. Still feeling dissatisfied, the instant petition, has been filed, by the petitioner. 5. I have heard the Counsel for the petitioner, and, have gone through the documents, on record, carefully. 6. The Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that, the evidence, sought to be produced, in pursuance of the application, under Section 311 Cr.P.C., moved by the petitioner, was essential, for the just decision of the case. He further submitted that, there was no fault, on the part of the petitioner, in producing his defence evidence. He further submitted that, on the other hand, the adjournments, were sought by the Counsel for the respondent, from time to time. He further submitted that, the Courts below, illegally dismissed the application, under Section 311 Cr.P.C. Criminal Misc. No. M-21119 of 2010 3 7. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, raised by the Counsel for the petitioner, in my considered opinion, the petition, is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons, to be recorded, hereinafter. It is evident, from the perusal of the order of the Revisional Court, that the complainant, closed her evidence, on 07.02.08. The first date, fixed for leading defence evidence, was 27.05.08. From 27.05.08 to 05.07.2010, a number of opportunities, were granted, to the petitioner, to produce and conclude his defence evidence, but, he failed, to do so. Ultimately, on 05.07.2010, after more than two years, his defence was closed by the trial Court. It is also evident, that many last opportunities, were granted, to the petitioner, but, he did not bother to produce and conclude his defence evidence. It was only after more than two years from 27.05.08, when the defence evidence of the petitioner was closed, that the application, under Section 311 Cr.P.C., was filed on 10.07.2010. This clearly showed, that the only motive of the petitioner, was to delay the disposal of the case, on one ground or the other. Why could not he close his defence evidence, for a period of more than two years, and, what prompted him, in filing the application, for summoning the witnesses, in additional evidence, immediately after the closure of his defence evidence, is not known. The object of the provisions of Section 311 Cr.P.C., is to further and not to hamper and impede the cause of justice. The orders impugned, do not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the Criminal Misc. No. M-21119 of 2010 4 interference of this Court. 8. For the reasons recorded above, Criminal Misc. No. M-21119 of 2010, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands dismissed. Any observation, made in this order, shall not be taken, as an expression of mind, on merits of the case. 9. Registry is directed, to comply with the order, by sending the copies thereof, to the Courts concerned. 26.07.2010 (SHAM SUNDER) Amodh JUDGE