Crl. Misc. No. M-36183 of 2010 [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-36183 of 2010 Date of Decision: January 17,2011 Sham Lal ..................................................................... Petitioner Versus M/s Preet Hire Purchase and Leasing Corporation (Regd.) .................................. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Ritu Bahri 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Amandeep Singh Manaise, Advocate for the petitioner. ... RITU BAHRI, J. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is for quashing of impugned order dated 8.10.2010 (Annexure P5) and order dated 25.9.2010 (Annexure P6) passed by the JMIC, Jalandhar, vide which the defence evidence of the petitioner/accused has been closed. A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has been initiated against the petitioner and he has been summoned vide order dated 31.5.2004 and is facing trial. An application dated 17.7.2009 was initiated by the petitioner for summoning two of the defence witnesses i.e. (1) Ahlmad of court of Smt. Ranjeet Kaur, CJSD Gurdaspur, and (2) Crl. Misc. No. M-36183 of 2010 [ 2 ] Shri Atul Seth, Chartered Accountant, Batala. Another application dated 15.3.2010 (Annexure P-3) was moved to summon the concerned official of the respondent-M/s Preet Hire Purchase and Leasing Corporation in defence with record of the firm. The respondent/complainant filed an application (Annexure P-4) dated 17.8.2010 seeking discharge of DW Manmeet Singh. Vide the impugned order dated 25.9.2010 the application of the complainant Manmeet Singh was allowed and application filed by the petitioner for summoning of the officials of the complainant firm has been dismissed as not maintainable. On 8.10.2010, the matter was adjourned for 13.10.2010 as no defence witness was present despite service. Being an old case, no further time was to be given to the accused to conclude his entire evidence. Mr. Amandeep Singh Manaise, learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that one opportunity for recalling Manmeet Singh and cross-examining him should have been given by the Court as his application has been rejected on the ground that Manmeet Singh had no Accountant or Manager to look after the affairs of the firm. In view of the fact that when Manmeet Singh was cross- examined, the petitioner had all the opportunity to seek record from his office and cross-examine him. The defence counsel did not appear before the trial Court on 8.10.2010 to conclude his evidence. Since Manmeet Singh was the only person conducting the affairs of the firm, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application for summoning the officials of M/s Preet Hire Purchase & Leasing Corporation. Dismissed. 17.1.2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Rupi JUDGE