The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed a petition, filed for quashing of order dated 27.3.2023, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. The Court observed that filling up the loopholes is a subsidiary factor and the Court should be concerned with the essentiality of the evidence.
A complaint was pending before the learned Trial Court for the commission of an offense punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complainant filed an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. seeking the production and proof of documents mentioned in the application. It was asserted that the accused was working as an agent of the complainant. He was duty-bound to deposit the sale proceeds with the complainant. He failed to do so. The accused led the evidence to controvert the fact that he was in charge of L-13, Una; therefore, the application was filed for producing the documents on record. The Learned Trial Court held that the documents were necessary for the adjudication of the dispute. No prejudice would be caused to the respondent-accused and he will get an opportunity to controvert the documents in cross-examination. Hence, the application was allowed. Hence, the present petition.The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Learned Trial Court erred in allowing the application. The accused had filed an application seeking the production of various documents. The complainant failed to produce the documents and instead stated that the documents relevant to the dispute had already been placed on record. The learned Trial Court did not notice the contents of the reply and wrongly allowed the application.The Learned Counsel for the Respondent supported the order passed by the Learned Trial Court and submitted that no interference is required with the same.
The Court noted that the accused had filed an application seeking the bills and invoices, accounts statement, and stock statement from the complainant. It means that the accused considered these documents to be relevant. Therefore, when these documents are being produced by the complainant, he cannot be heard to say that the documents are not relevant.
The Court observed that the Court has the power under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. to summon any witness or recall to reexamine any person, who had already been examined for the just decision of the case. The Court said that the submission that filing of the documents will amount to filling up the lacuna and should not be permitted is not acceptable; filling up the loopholes is a subsidiary factor and the Court should be concerned with the essentiality of the evidence.The Himachal Pradesh High Court, dismissing the petition, held that there is no error in the order passed by the learned Trial Court.
TAGS: Himachal Pradesh High Court petition quashing order Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate essentiality of evidence
