Evidence after 313
Arvind Singh Chauhan
(Querist) 30 July 2012
This query is : Resolved
Plz provide law or citation that complainant may produce one proof before court after 313. Which he missed to produce before.
ajay sethi
(Expert) 30 July 2012
Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S B.L.Exports And Another vs --- on 3 February, 2010
Crl. Misc. No. M-3204 of 2010(O&M) -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No. M-3204 of 2010(O&M)
Date of Decision:February 03, 2010
M/s B.L.Exports and another
---Petitioners
versus
Partap Spintex Limited, Maur Mandi
---Respondent
Coram: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH
***
Present: Mr.Kiran Kr. Madan, Advocate,
for the petitioner
***
GURDEV SINGH, J.
The petitioners/accused have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") invoking the inherent powers of this Court for quashing order dated 7.1.2010 (Annexure P-1) passed by Shri S.M.Garg, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Talwandi Sabo, vide which he allowed the application filed by respondent No. 1/complainant for leading additional evidence in the form of the Articles of Association, Certificate of Registration etc. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant filed a complaint against petitioners-accused under Sections 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881(hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. On the basis of the preliminary evidence produced Crl. Misc. No. M-3204 of 2010(O&M) -2- against them, they were summoned to stand their trial for the offence under Sections 138 of the Act. After the accused appeared before the Magistrate, notice of the offence was given to them to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Complainant produced its evidence in support of the allegations made in the complaint. After it closed its evidence, the complaint was fixed for recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. It was at that stage, that the complainant filed an application under Section 311 of the Code for producing Articles of Association, Certificate of Registration of the complainant company by way of additional evidence. That application was still pending when second application under the same Section was filed for producing on record the Articles of Association, Certificate of Registration, balance sheet and minutes of the meeting of the Board of Directors of the complainant- company. That application was accepted by the learned Magistrate vide the aforesaid order.
Notice of the petition was given to the complainant. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides. It was submitted by counsel for the petitioners-accused that the learned Magistrate committed illegality by not deciding the first application filed under Section 311 of the Code and by allowing the complainant to produce additional evidence. At the stage, when the complaint was fixed for recording the defence evidence of the accused, allowing of his application amounts to abuse of the process of the Court and, as such, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
On the other hand, it has been contended by the counsel for the complainant that the power to allow the production of additional evidence Crl. Misc. No. M-3204 of 2010(O&M) -3- can be exercised by the Magistrate at any stage and all that evidence is allowed to be produced, which is essential to the just decision of the case. The complainant wants to prove on record that it is a registered company and that Vijay Kumar Bansal, through whom the complaint has been filed, was duly authorized by the Board of Directors to file the complaint. The entries of the balance sheet will inspire confidence in the other evidence produced by the complainant.
The Magistrate has power to allow any party, under first part of Section 311 of the Code, to produce additional evidence. The second part of that Section makes it mandatory for the Magistrate, to allow the production of additional evidence, which is essential to the just decision of the case. The first part of this Section confers a discretion upon the Magistrate to allow or not to allow additional evidence, but the second part is in the form of a mandate. Such application for additional evidence can be filed at any stage before the final pronouncement of the judgment. There is no force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the accused that such like application could not have been allowed after the accused have been called upon to enter on their defence or that two such applications for the same relief were filed.
The Magistrate judiciously exercised his powers by allowing the application. The criminal courts are meant to advance the cause of justice and if for doing such justice, additional evidence is required, it has the power to allow such evidence. The order passed under Section 311 of the Code can be interfered by this Court in case it is found that the discretion has been exercised by the Magistrate arbitrarily. The accused are not going to be prejudiced by the production of Crl. Misc. No. M-3204 of 2010(O&M) -4- the said additional evidence. The complainant wants to prove those documents by way of additional evidence in order to prove that the complaint could have been filed in its name and that the person by whom the same has been filed, has been duly authorized to file the same and that the cheque in question was issued by the accused in discharge of the legal liability/debt.
In view of what has been said above, this petition is hereby dismissed.
(GURDEV SINGH)
JUDGE
February 03, 2010
PARAMJIT
Arvind Singh Chauhan
(Querist) 30 July 2012
Thanks a lot Sethi Sir for the quick and accurate solution. Thanks a lot.
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 30 July 2012
good very good Arvind!
Bless you successes.
