1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application No.797 of 2010 (Ganpat Mahadeo Kapse v. Rajiv s/o Bhupendranath Sidhra) Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order Shri P.A. Gode, Advocate for Applicant. Coram : R.M. Borde, J. Dated : 26 nd July, 2010 The 6 th Joint Judicial Magistrate First Class and Special Court under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, Nagpur, has allowed the application tendered by the respondent/original complainant at Exhibit 51 in Complaint Case No.3610 of 2008, whereby the respondent/original complainant has been permitted to produce additional evidence in exercise of powers under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It transpires that the recording of the evidence of the complainant is over and he has also been cross-examined. After the examination of the complainant, a request was made by the complainant that the copy of the document, i.e. agreement referred to him in his examination-in-chief, which was placed on the record in some other companion matter filed against the accused/applicant herein is in fact necessary to be produced before the Court so as to clarify the background of the dispute. The copy of the document, original of which is placed on record in another proceedings initiated by the same complainant was sought to be placed on record, which was opposed by the applicant/accused contending that it would amount to filling up the lacuna arising in the case of 2 the complainant. The argument was turned down by the Trial Court and the complainant has been permitted to lead evidence in respect of the said document, i.e. agreement. The counsel appearing for the applicant/accused contends that the attempt by the complainant to place on record the additional evidence would amount to filling the lacuna arising in the case of the complainant and the same cannot be permitted. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering further fact that the complainant has not yet closed his evidence, exercise of discretion by the Trial Court under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in favour of the complainant, permitting him to lead evidence, cannot be said to be arbitrary. Granting permission to place on record additional evidence, even if sometimes amounting to filling up the lacuna, if appear to be necessary, can be permitted, as has been held by the Apex Court in the matter of Iddar and others v. Aabida and another, reported in AIR 2007 SC 3029. In this view of the matter, at this interlocutory stage, there is no warrant to exercise powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The application is devoid of substance and the same stands rejected. Judge. pdl.