CRR-3545-2018 (O&M); -:1:- RR-3546-2018 (O&M) & CRR-3547-2018 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (116) 1. CRR-3545-2018 (O&M) M/S JAI INDUSTRIES AND ANOTHER … Petitioner Versus VEE KAY POLYCOATS LTD ... Respondent 2. CRR-3546-2018 (O&M) M/S JAI INDUSTRIES AND ANOTHER … Petitioner Versus VEE KAY POLYCOATS LTD ... Respondent 3. CRR-3547-2018 (O&M) M/S JAI INDUSTRIES AND ANOTHER … Petitioner Versus VEE KAY POLYCOATS LTD ... Respondent Date of Decision:22.07.2026 -.- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present:- Mr. Gautam Diwan, Advocate for the petitioner(s) in all the cases. . Mr. Neetish Handa, Advocate for the respondent(s) through video conferencing. GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.24 13:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-3545-2018 (O&M); -:2:- RR-3546-2018 (O&M) & CRR-3547-2018 (O&M) -.- VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral) 1. By way of this common judgment, this Court proposes to adjudicate and dispose of all the three criminal revision petitions together, as they emanate from substantially identical factual backgrounds and involve common questions of law and fact. The revision petitions have been instituted by the same petitioners assailing separate but identical orders dated 29.09.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gurugram, in three complaints instituted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Since the controversy involved in all the petitions is common and the impugned orders rest upon identical reasoning, it is considered appropriate to decide the same by a common judgment in order to avoid repetition of facts and multiplicity of reasoning. 2. The challenge in the present revision petitions is directed against the orders dated 29.09.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gurugram, whereby the applications preferred by the complainant under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (corresponding to Section 348 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), seeking permission to place on record certain additional documentary evidence in the nature of e-mail communications and for recalling the complainant's witness for further examination, were allowed in Complaint Nos. 6400 of 2016, 6492 of 2016 and 6493 of 2016, respectively. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contended that the complainant had already availed sufficient and effective GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.24 13:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-3545-2018 (O&M); -:3:- RR-3546-2018 (O&M) & CRR-3547-2018 (O&M) opportunities to lead its evidence, and that the applications under Section 311 Cr.P.C. were moved only after the cross-examination of the complainant's authorised representative had been concluded and when the matters had reached the stage of recording the statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. It is submitted that the said applications were merely an endeavour to fill up lacunae in the prosecution case by introducing documents which were admittedly not produced despite ample opportunity, thereby causing serious prejudice to the defence. Conversely, learned counsel appearing for the respondent supported the impugned orders by contending that the additional documentary evidence sought to be produced is indispensable for the just and effective adjudication of the complaints, and that the learned trial Court has rightly exercised its discretionary jurisdiction under Section 311 Cr.P.C. in the larger interest of justice. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have meticulously perused the paper book with their able assistance. 5. A perusal of the record reveals that the applications were filed on the specific plea that the complainant had duly supplied the relevant e- mail communications to his counsel; however, owing to an inadvertent mistake on the part of the counsel, the said documents were placed in another case file and, consequently, could not be proved during the complainant's evidence. The learned trial Court, after considering the explanation so furnished, arrived at the conclusion that the e-mail communications constitute material evidence necessary for the just and GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.24 13:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-3545-2018 (O&M); -:4:- RR-3546-2018 (O&M) & CRR-3547-2018 (O&M) effective adjudication of the controversy and, therefore, deserved to be brought on record. 6. Having bestowed thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and upon an independent appraisal of the material available on record, this Court finds no infirmity in the view adopted by the learned trial Court. The omission to produce the e-mail communications during the initial examination of the complainant has been satisfactorily explained as having occurred on account of an inadvertent lapse on the part of the complainant's counsel. It is a settled principle of law that a litigant ought not to be made to suffer for the bona fide mistake or inadvertence of his counsel. Furthermore, the documents sought to be produced are electronic records which inherently bear digital footprints and whose admissibility and evidentiary value remain subject to proof in accordance with law during trial. The power conferred upon the Court under Section 311 Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Section 348 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) is of the widest amplitude and is intended to enable the Court to summon or recall any witness or permit additional evidence whenever such evidence appears to be essential for the just decision of the case. The paramount consideration is the discovery of truth and the advancement of justice rather than adherence to technical procedural constraints. 6.1. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the learned trial Court has exercised the said jurisdiction judiciously and for cogent reasons. The impugned orders neither suffer from any patent illegality, perversity nor jurisdictional error warranting interference in the revisional GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.24 13:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-3545-2018 (O&M); -:5:- RR-3546-2018 (O&M) & CRR-3547-2018 (O&M) jurisdiction of this Court. Consequently, finding no merit in the present revision petitions, the same are hereby dismissed. 7. In view of the final adjudication of the principal controversy, all pending miscellaneous applications, if any, arising out of or ancillary to the present revision petitions shall also stand disposed of. No separate or further orders are called for in respect thereof. 8. A photocopy of this judgment be placed on the files of the connected revision petitions. ( VIRINDER AGGARWAL) 22.07.2026 JUDGE Gaurav Sorot Whether reasoned / speaking? Yes / No Whether reportable? Yes / No GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.24 13:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document