CRM No. M 13778 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 13778 of 2010 Date of decision: 25.05.2010 M/s Ram Electronics and another ........ Petitioners Versus M/s Whirlpool of India Limited .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Gorav Kathuria, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. B B Bagga, Advocate for the respondent -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral) This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the order dated 21.04.2010 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 57 dated 10.08.2009 by the learned Sessions Judge, Faridabad, whereby, the application of the petitioner for leading additional evidence in order to exhibit the documents which were already marked by the learned trial Court and were not properly put in evidence has been dismissed. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that they got exhibited A-1 to A-87 documents in a similar case between same CRM No. M 13778 of 2010 2 parties under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act in the same Court bearing No. 79/2 of 2006 and proved beyond reasonable doubt that there remain no such debt payable by the petitioner towards complainant and the cheques were not issued towards any existing liability. Whereas, in the present case, the trial Court has allowed exhibited documents as EX. A-1 to A-49 and inadvertently marked other documents as A-1 to A-59 without any reason. Accordingly, the petitioner was convicted by the trial Court. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate Court and it came to the notice that the said documents tendered by the petitioner were not considered by the trial Court being marked documents. Thus, he moved an application, in an appeal, so as to exhibit the said documents as A-1 to A-59. However, the same was dismissed vide order dated 21.04.2010. Hence, the present petition has been filed praying therein that his aforesaid application be allowed and that he may be allowed to lead the evidence for effective adjudication of the matter in controversy. Taking into account that the documents sought to be exhibited are the same as were produced in case No. 79/2 of 2006 and were proved and not objected to by the respondent at that time, learned counsel for the respondent states that he has no objection if the same are also allowed to be read in evidence by the Appellate Court in all other connected cases. In view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondent, the present petition is allowed and the order dated 21.04.2010 dismissing the application of the petitioner for adducing additional evidence, is set aside. The Appellate Court is directed to allow the petitioner to exhibit the said documents A-1 to A-59 which were already CRM No. M 13778 of 2010 3 marked by the trial Court and exhibited in another case bearing No. 79/2 of 2006. Disposed of in the above terms. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 25.05.2010 mohan