CRM No.M-8903 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-8903 of 2010 Date of Decision:23.11.2010 Satish Kumar ......Petitioner Versus Punjab State Ware Housing Corporation, Chandigarh through its Ware House Manager .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Vijay K.Jindal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.I.S.Sidhu, Advocate, for the respondent. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The conspectus of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the present petition and emanating from the record is that, Punjab State Ware Housing Corporation (for short “PSWC”) (here-in-after to be referred as “the respondent-Corporation”) entered into an agreement with the petitioner-convict for milling and shelling of paddy stocks. The petitioner defaulted and did not account for the amount of paddy. Subsequently, he issued cheques for an amount of Rs.10,60,000/-(Rs.5,00,000/- + Rs.5,60,000/-), in lieu of shortage of paddy, in favour of the respondent-Corporation. As, the cheques issued by him were dishonoured, therefore, the respondent-Corporation filed the complaint against him. 2. Having completed all the codal formalities and on ultimate analysis of the evidence on record, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of two years, for the commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.11.2008 by the trial Magistrate. CRM No.M-8903 of 2010 2 3. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the trial Court, the petitioner-convict filed the appeal before the Sessions Judge, Sangrur. During the pendency of the appeal, he filed the application(Annexure P- 1) under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for further cross-examination of PW4-J.P.Kakria and PW5-Pawan Kumar Mittal. The first appellate Court allowed the application and permitted him to further cross-examine them, by virtue of order dated 18.04.2009 (Annexure P-2). 4. The petitioner-convict tried to delay the matter and did not summon the requisite record from the office of PSWC, which was essential for further cross-examination of PW5 by the petitioner. Therefore, PW5 was bound down for 15.10.2009 and he(petitioner-convict) was directed to collect the summons of the Manager and D.M. of PSWC, for summoning the record. He moved another application(Annexure P-9) directing the complainant to give the complete address of PW4-J.P.Kakria. The application was dismissed by the first appellant Court vide impugned order dated 13.10.2009(Annexure P-10). 5. The matter did not rest there. On 15.10.2009, PW5 was cross- examined at length and in order to delay the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner further wanted to cross-examine the witness, after his re-examination. The prayer was declined by the Sessions Judge vide impugned order dated 15.10.2009(Annexure P-12). 6. The petitioner-convict did not feel satisfied and filed the instant petition for quashing the impugned orders(Annexures P-10 and P-12). 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, after going through the record with their valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition in this context. 8. As is evident from the record that aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the trial Court, the petitioner-convict filed the appeal before the Sessions Judge. During the pendency of the appeal and in the CRM No.M-8903 of 2010 3 wake of application(Annexure P-1) under Section 311 Cr.P.C., the first appellate Court permitted him to further cross-examine PW4 and PW5 vide order dated 18.04.2009(Annexure P-2). The bare perusal of the record would reveal that the petitioner-convict considerably tried to delay the matter. Ultimately, PW5-Pawan Kumar Mittal was present on 13.10.2009, but he could not be further cross- examined in the absence of requisite record as he(petitioner-convict) did not apply for the record to be requisitioned from the office of PSWC. Therefore, in the interest of justice, PW5 was bound down and he(petitioner-convict) was directed to summon the record to enable him to cross-examine PW5 in this relevant connection. Meaning thereby, the Court has acted reasonably and granted full opportunity to the petitioner-convict in this relevant context. 9. However, the main argument of the learned counsel that the first appellate Court has wrongly dismissed the application(Annexure P-9) and illegally directed the petitioner-convict to take summons of the Manager and D.M. of the PSWC, for summoning the record, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. 10. Section 69 Cr.P.C. postulates that-Notwithstanding anything contained in the preceding sections of Chapter 6, a Court issuing summons to a witness may, in addition to and simultaneously with the issue of such summons, direct a copy of the summons to be served by registered post addressed to the witness at the place where he ordinarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain. 11. Not only that, the Court has the vast power to summon any person to produce the documents, as contemplated under Section 91 Cr.P.C. As the Court has issued summons to the Manager/DM of the PSWC to produce the record, to enable the petitioner-convict, to further cross-examine PW5, in that eventuality, it cannot possibly be saith that the Court did not have the jurisdiction to ask petitioner-convict to summon the officials of the PSWC. Therefore, the contrary CRM No.M-8903 of 2010 4 arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner 'stricto sensu' deserve to be and are hereby repelled under the present set of circumstances. 12. No other point, worth consideration, has been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the parties. 13. In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of final hearing of the appeal, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant petition is hereby dismissed in the obtaining circumstances of the case. November 23, 2010 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE CRM No.M-8903 of 2010 5