CRM-M- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT 124 Darshan Singh Raman Kumar CORAM: Present: SUMEET GOEL CRM-28708 on record as Annexures P CRM-M- 1. order dated 13.03.2023 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Abohar whereby the application filed by the respondent (herein) complainant, under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. of 1973 was allowed and respondent memo issued by the presentation of the cheque in question 2. complainant Court subsequent to which the statement of the petitioner under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was duly recorded. Thereafter, the petitioner also closed his -14574-2023 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Darshan Singh V/s Raman Kumar CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. Ashok Kumar Khunger, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. H.S. Sehgal, Advocate for the respondent. ***** SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral) 28708-2025 Application is allowed as prayed for. The documents are taken on record as Annexures P-7 and P-8 respectively. -14574-2023 The present petition has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 13.03.2023 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Abohar whereby the application filed by the respondent (herein) complainant, under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. of 1973 was allowed and respondent - complainant was permitted to place memo issued by the Punjab National Bank da the presentation of the cheque in question Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the complainant-respondent has already concluded his evidence before the trial Court subsequent to which the statement of the petitioner under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was duly recorded. Thereafter, the petitioner also closed his 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-28708-2025 in/& CRM-M-14574-2023 (O&M) Date of decision: 30.07.202 ....Petitioner ....Respondent MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Ashok Kumar Khunger, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. H.S. Sehgal, Advocate for the respondent. ***** Application is allowed as prayed for. The documents are taken 8 respectively. The present petition has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 13.03.2023 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Abohar whereby the application filed by the respondent (herein) complainant, under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. of 1973 was allowed and complainant was permitted to place on record and prove the the Punjab National Bank dated 04.07.2017, pertaining to the presentation of the cheque in question. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the respondent has already concluded his evidence before the trial Court subsequent to which the statement of the petitioner under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was duly recorded. Thereafter, the petitioner also closed his (O&M) .2025 Application is allowed as prayed for. The documents are taken The present petition has been filed seeking quashing of the Ist Class, Abohar whereby the application filed by the respondent (herein) - complainant, under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. of 1973 was allowed and on record and prove the , pertaining to Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the respondent has already concluded his evidence before the trial Court subsequent to which the statement of the petitioner under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was duly recorded. Thereafter, the petitioner also closed his AJAY KUMAR 2025.07.30 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- defence evidence on 24.02.2023 arguments. On 01.03.2023, part arguments were heard and the case was adjourned to 03.03.2023. Learned counsel has submitted that at this belated stage and solely with a view to fill up the lacunae in the prosecution c complainant Cr.P.C. seeking permission to place and prove on record the memo issued by the Punjab National Bank dated 04.07.2017. Learned counsel asserts that though the petitioner filed a the Court below vide impugned order allowed the same. Learned counsel has further drawn the attention of the Court to the observations made in the impugned order wherein it was noted that no suggestion had complainant during cross Punjab National Bank memo. It is strenuously argued by the learned counsel that such an observation is legally untenable as the accused cannot be expected to cross neither been proved nor exhibited on the record at the relevant stage. According to learned counsel, the impugned order is in law, being based on mere presumptions and conjectures. contended by learned counsel that the impugned order is cryptic, sketchy, non-reasoned, devoid of merit and thus, deserves to be set further iterated that the additional evidence sought to be brought on record by virtue adjudication of the case and, therefore, the same is irrelevant. Further, no ground is made out by the applicant (before the trial Court) to bring forward the evidence by virtue of Section 311 Furthermore, it is pertinent to note that the impugned order is non -14574-2023 (O&M) defence evidence on 24.02.2023 and the matter was listed for final arguments. On 01.03.2023, part arguments were heard and the case was adjourned to 03.03.2023. Learned counsel has submitted that at this belated stage and solely with a view to fill up the lacunae in the prosecution c complainant-respondent has moved an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. seeking permission to place and prove on record the memo issued by the Punjab National Bank dated 04.07.2017. Learned counsel asserts that though the petitioner filed a detailed reply opposing the said application but the Court below vide impugned order allowed the same. Learned counsel has further drawn the attention of the Court to the observations made in the impugned order wherein it was noted that no suggestion had complainant during cross-examination regarding the non Punjab National Bank memo. It is strenuously argued by the learned counsel that such an observation is legally untenable as the accused cannot be expected to cross-examine a witness with respect to a document which had neither been proved nor exhibited on the record at the relevant stage. According to learned counsel, the impugned order is in law, being based on mere presumptions and conjectures. contended by learned counsel that the impugned order is cryptic, sketchy, reasoned, devoid of merit and thus, deserves to be set further iterated that the additional evidence sought to be brought on record by virtue of Section 311 Cr.P.C., are not necessary for just and proper adjudication of the case and, therefore, the same is irrelevant. Further, no ground is made out by the applicant (before the trial Court) to bring forward the evidence by virtue of Section 311 Furthermore, it is pertinent to note that the impugned order is non 2 and the matter was listed for final arguments. On 01.03.2023, part arguments were heard and the case was adjourned to 03.03.2023. Learned counsel has submitted that at this belated stage and solely with a view to fill up the lacunae in the prosecution case, the respondent has moved an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. seeking permission to place and prove on record the memo issued by the Punjab National Bank dated 04.07.2017. Learned counsel asserts that detailed reply opposing the said application but the Court below vide impugned order allowed the same. Learned counsel has further drawn the attention of the Court to the observations made in the impugned order wherein it was noted that no suggestion had been put to the examination regarding the non-production of the Punjab National Bank memo. It is strenuously argued by the learned counsel that such an observation is legally untenable as the accused cannot be amine a witness with respect to a document which had neither been proved nor exhibited on the record at the relevant stage. According to learned counsel, the impugned order is ex facie unsustainable in law, being based on mere presumptions and conjectures. It is further contended by learned counsel that the impugned order is cryptic, sketchy, reasoned, devoid of merit and thus, deserves to be set-aside. It has been further iterated that the additional evidence sought to be brought on record of Section 311 Cr.P.C., are not necessary for just and proper adjudication of the case and, therefore, the same is irrelevant. Further, no ground is made out by the applicant (before the trial Court) to bring forward the evidence by virtue of Section 311 of Cr.P.C. at this belated stage. Furthermore, it is pertinent to note that the impugned order is non-speaking and the matter was listed for final arguments. On 01.03.2023, part arguments were heard and the case was adjourned to 03.03.2023. Learned counsel has submitted that at this belated ase, the respondent has moved an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. seeking permission to place and prove on record the memo issued by the Punjab National Bank dated 04.07.2017. Learned counsel asserts that detailed reply opposing the said application but the Court below vide impugned order allowed the same. Learned counsel has further drawn the attention of the Court to the observations made in the been put to the production of the Punjab National Bank memo. It is strenuously argued by the learned counsel that such an observation is legally untenable as the accused cannot be amine a witness with respect to a document which had neither been proved nor exhibited on the record at the relevant stage. unsustainable It is further contended by learned counsel that the impugned order is cryptic, sketchy, aside. It has been further iterated that the additional evidence sought to be brought on record of Section 311 Cr.P.C., are not necessary for just and proper adjudication of the case and, therefore, the same is irrelevant. Further, no ground is made out by the applicant (before the trial Court) to bring forward of Cr.P.C. at this belated stage. speaking AJAY KUMAR 2025.07.30 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- as the concluding paragraph of the order clearly indicates that the Court below has allowed the application without properly considering the fact circumstances of the case. Therefore, on this ground alone, the impugned order deserves to be set 3. respondent has opposed the instant petition by arguing that the impugned order doe aforesaid memo the time of filing of the complaint and therefore, the complaint was instituted without annexing is essential for the just and proper adjudication of the present complaint. Thus, dismissal of the instant petition is entreated for. 4. the paper- 5. Court in case titled as 2024 NCPHHC 24178 -14574-2023 (O&M) as the concluding paragraph of the order clearly indicates that the Court below has allowed the application without properly considering the fact circumstances of the case. Therefore, on this ground alone, the impugned order deserves to be set-aside. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the complainant respondent has opposed the instant petition by arguing that the impugned does not suffer from any illegality. aforesaid memo was not in the possession of the respondent the time of filing of the complaint and therefore, the complaint was instituted without annexing this document. It is further averred that the said document essential for the just and proper adjudication of the present complaint. Thus, dismissal of the instant petition is entreated for. I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused -book. It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by this Court in case titled as Karamjit Singh vs. State of Punjab and another: 2024 NCPHHC 24178; relevant whereof reads as under: “8.4 As an epilogue to the above rumination, th emerge: (I) The broad gamut for exercising power by a criminal trial Court under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. are as follows: (i) The prime factor for considering a plea under Section 311 of Cr,.P.C. is as to whether such evidence “ decision of the case.” (ii) Section 311 of Cr.P.C. can be invoked by a criminal trial Court even when cross-examination of a witness has earlier been foreclosed by a Court order. Such exercise of power by the Court cannot be the concerned Court recalling/reviewing its own order. (iii) Section 311 of Cr.P.C. empowers a criminal trial Court to even allow further examination/cross-examination of a witness at instance of the prosecution/accused. 3 as the concluding paragraph of the order clearly indicates that the Court below has allowed the application without properly considering the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, on this ground alone, the impugned counsel appearing for the complainant respondent has opposed the instant petition by arguing that the impugned s not suffer from any illegality. According to learned counsel, the possession of the respondent – complainant at the time of filing of the complaint and therefore, the complaint was instituted It is further averred that the said document essential for the just and proper adjudication of the present complaint. Thus, dismissal of the instant petition is entreated for. I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by this Karamjit Singh vs. State of Punjab and another: relevant whereof reads as under:- As an epilogue to the above rumination, the following principles The broad gamut for exercising power by a criminal trial Court under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. are as follows: The prime factor for considering a plea under Section 311 of Cr,.P.C. is as to whether such evidence “appears to be essential to the just Section 311 of Cr.P.C. can be invoked by a criminal trial Court examination of a witness has earlier been foreclosed by a Court order. Such exercise of power by the Court cannot be construed as the concerned Court recalling/reviewing its own order. Section 311 of Cr.P.C. empowers a criminal trial Court to even examination of a witness at instance of as the concluding paragraph of the order clearly indicates that the Court s and circumstances of the case. Therefore, on this ground alone, the impugned counsel appearing for the complainant- respondent has opposed the instant petition by arguing that the impugned According to learned counsel, the complainant at the time of filing of the complaint and therefore, the complaint was instituted It is further averred that the said document essential for the just and proper adjudication of the present complaint. I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by this Karamjit Singh vs. State of Punjab and another: e following principles The broad gamut for exercising power by a criminal trial Court rs to be essential to the just Section 311 of Cr.P.C. can be invoked by a criminal trial Court examination of a witness has earlier been foreclosed by a construed as Section 311 of Cr.P.C. empowers a criminal trial Court to even examination of a witness at instance of AJAY KUMAR 2025.07.30 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 6. Raman Kumar vs. Darshan Singh Instruments Act agai purportedly issued by the petitioner in discharge of a legally enforceable debt. Based on the preliminary evidence of the respondent petitioner was summoned by the trial Court and subsequent whereupon he was granted bail and thereafter he was regularly appearing before the Court evidence on 14.10.2022, whereinafter the matter was adjourned for recording the statement of the p 21.10.2022. The statement of the petitioner was subsequently recorded on 28.10.2022 and the case was thereafter listed for defence evidence and arguments. On 24.02.2023, the petitioner closed his defence evidence an the case was fixed for final arguments on 01.03.2023. -14574-2023 (O&M) (iv) A criminal Court is well within, its judicial discretion, to summon any person as a witness at any stage of proceedings/trial etc. till such Court is seized of the matter. (v) A criminal trial Court may exercise power under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. on an application made by a party to lis or on its own volition. (vi) Successive application(s) for summoning same witness for examination/re-examination is not debarred but such a plea deserves to be dealt with exercising a higher degree of circumspection. (II) No straight jacket formulae can be enumerated regarding mode, manner and extent of exercise of power under Section 311 of Cr.P.C by a criminal trial Court as every case has its own unique facts/circumstances. It is neither possible nor pragmatic to lay dow lines as every case is sui generis in terms of factual conspectus. (III) Needless to say that exercise of power under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. by a criminal trial Court should be undertaken by according cogent and lucid reasons, in accordance with basic principles of our criminal jurisprudence, for such exercise of its power.” The respondent – complainant instituted a complaint titled as Raman Kumar vs. Darshan Singh under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner alleging dishonour of cheque purportedly issued by the petitioner in discharge of a legally enforceable debt. Based on the preliminary evidence of the respondent petitioner was summoned by the trial Court and subsequent whereupon he was granted bail and thereafter he was regularly appearing before the Court. Thereafter, the respondent evidence on 14.10.2022, whereinafter the matter was adjourned for recording the statement of the petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 21.10.2022. The statement of the petitioner was subsequently recorded on 28.10.2022 and the case was thereafter listed for defence evidence and arguments. On 24.02.2023, the petitioner closed his defence evidence an the case was fixed for final arguments on 01.03.2023. 4 Court is well within, its judicial discretion, to summon any person as a witness at any stage of proceedings/trial etc. till such A criminal trial Court may exercise power under Section 311 of made by a party to lis or on its own volition. Successive application(s) for summoning same witness for examination is not debarred but such a plea deserves to be dealt with exercising a higher degree of circumspection. No straight jacket formulae can be enumerated regarding mode, manner and extent of exercise of power under Section 311 of Cr.P.C by a criminal trial Court as every case has its own unique facts/circumstances. It is neither possible nor pragmatic to lay down any such exhaustive guide in terms of factual conspectus. Needless to say that exercise of power under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. by a criminal trial Court should be undertaken by according ns, in accordance with basic principles of our criminal jurisprudence, for such exercise of its power.” complainant instituted a complaint titled as under Section 138 of the Negotiable nst the petitioner alleging dishonour of cheque purportedly issued by the petitioner in discharge of a legally enforceable debt. Based on the preliminary evidence of the respondent-complainant, the petitioner was summoned by the trial Court and subsequently appeare whereupon he was granted bail and thereafter he was regularly appearing Thereafter, the respondent-complainant had closed his evidence on 14.10.2022, whereinafter the matter was adjourned for etitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 21.10.2022. The statement of the petitioner was subsequently recorded on 28.10.2022 and the case was thereafter listed for defence evidence and arguments. On 24.02.2023, the petitioner closed his defence evidence an the case was fixed for final arguments on 01.03.2023. Court is well within, its judicial discretion, to summon A criminal trial Court may exercise power under Section 311 of examination is not debarred but such a plea deserves to be No straight jacket formulae can be enumerated regarding mode, manner and extent of exercise of power under Section 311 of Cr.P.C by a criminal trial Court as every case has its own unique facts/circumstances. n any such exhaustive guide- Needless to say that exercise of power under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. by a criminal trial Court should be undertaken by according ns, in accordance with basic principles of our complainant instituted a complaint titled as under Section 138 of the Negotiable nst the petitioner alleging dishonour of cheque purportedly issued by the petitioner in discharge of a legally enforceable complainant, the ly appeared, whereupon he was granted bail and thereafter he was regularly appearing complainant had closed his evidence on 14.10.2022, whereinafter the matter was adjourned for etitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 21.10.2022. The statement of the petitioner was subsequently recorded on 28.10.2022 and the case was thereafter listed for defence evidence and arguments. On 24.02.2023, the petitioner closed his defence evidence and AJAY KUMAR 2025.07.30 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- Section 311 of the Code was filed on behalf of the complainant seeking permission to memo dated 04.07.2017. duly appeared and opposed the application by the respondent had already closed his evidence and that the application had been filed at t Denying all the claims made in the application, the accused (herein) ha trial Court, vide impugned order dated applicant ( that the instant complainant has been instituted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which primarily rests upon the documentary evidence. the Punjab National Bank appears to be an essential document for the proper adjudication of the case as in its absen the precise grounds on which the cheque in question was dishonoured. Furthermore, no prejudice is likely to be caused to the accused (herein) if the complainant is permitted as the accused examine the Court below applicant (respondent herein) to compen 7. complainant -14574-2023 (O&M) During the course of trial proceedings, an application under Section 311 of the Code was filed on behalf of the complainant seeking permission to place on record and to prove memo dated 04.07.2017. Upon issuance of notice, the petitioner duly appeared and opposed the application by the respondent had already closed his evidence and that the application had been filed at the fag end of the proceedings merely to fill up lacunae. Denying all the claims made in the application, the accused (herein) had requested the dismissal of the present application. However, the trial Court, after properly appreciating the fact vide impugned order dated 13.03.2023 applicant (respondent herein) to place and prove the said memo that the instant complainant has been instituted under Section 138 of the tiable Instruments Act, which primarily rests upon the documentary evidence. Furthermore, the Court below observed that the memo issued by the Punjab National Bank appears to be an essential document for the proper adjudication of the case as in its absence it would not be possible to ascertain the precise grounds on which the cheque in question was dishonoured. Furthermore, no prejudice is likely to be caused to the accused (herein) if the complainant is permitted to place the said memo as the accused-petitioner should be afforded ample opportunity to cross examine the witness who would produce the said documents before the below. Moreover, costs of Rs.1,000/ applicant (respondent herein) to compensate the opposite party. The factual conspectus of the matter in hand reveals that the complainant-respondent has filed the application in question before the trial 5 During the course of trial proceedings, an application under Section 311 of the Code was filed on behalf of the complainant-respondent and to prove the Punjab National bank Upon issuance of notice, the petitioner-accused duly appeared and opposed the application by specifically highlighting that the respondent had already closed his evidence and that the application had he fag end of the proceedings merely to fill up lacunae. Denying all the claims made in the application, the accused-petitioner requested the dismissal of the present application. However, the after properly appreciating the facts and settled principles of law, 13.03.2023, allowed the application of the to place and prove the said memo by asserting that the instant complainant has been instituted under Section 138 of the tiable Instruments Act, which primarily rests upon the documentary Furthermore, the Court below observed that the memo issued by the Punjab National Bank appears to be an essential document for the proper ce it would not be possible to ascertain the precise grounds on which the cheque in question was dishonoured. Furthermore, no prejudice is likely to be caused to the accused-petitioner to place the said memo in question petitioner should be afforded ample opportunity to cross produce the said documents before the Moreover, costs of Rs.1,000/- was also imposed upon the sate the opposite party. The factual conspectus of the matter in hand reveals that the respondent has filed the application in question before the trial During the course of trial proceedings, an application under respondent ab National bank accused specifically highlighting that the respondent had already closed his evidence and that the application had he fag end of the proceedings merely to fill up lacunae. petitioner requested the dismissal of the present application. However, the s and settled principles of law, allowed the application of the by asserting that the instant complainant has been instituted under Section 138 of the tiable Instruments Act, which primarily rests upon the documentary Furthermore, the Court below observed that the memo issued by the Punjab National Bank appears to be an essential document for the proper ce it would not be possible to ascertain the precise grounds on which the cheque in question was dishonoured. petitioner stion, petitioner should be afforded ample opportunity to cross- produce the said documents before the imposed upon the The factual conspectus of the matter in hand reveals that the respondent has filed the application in question before the trial AJAY KUMAR 2025.07.30 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- Court to place and prove on record the memo dated 04.07.2017 issued by the Punjab Nati under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, a provision that predominately relies upon documentary evidence to establish the commission of the alleged offence. The gravamen of such pr the dishonor of cheque purportedly issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability. The record by way of additional evidence are deemed necessary for the effective and proper adjudication of the matter in hand. It is well established principle of law that, in the interest of justice, valuable evidence that may have been omitted due to an ove record at any stage of the proceedings, provided it is essential for the just decision of the case. Given the nature of the offence, the evidentiary foundation of the complaint is primarily documentary a thereof necessitates a meticulous examination of the documents forming the substratum of the case. Accordingly, the production and scrutiny of such documentary evidence are vital to the just and proper adjudication of the matter. The e the present case, as it is crucial for the complete and fair adjudication of the matter and bears significantly on the issue in dispute. Furthermore, no prejudice would be caused to the accused an opportunity to scrutinize the authenticity and veracity of the question Moreover, the paramount consideration while deciding an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. is whether the evidence sought to be adduced is -14574-2023 (O&M) place and prove on record the memo dated 04.07.2017 issued by the Punjab National Bank. It appears that the complainant has been instituted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, a provision that predominately relies upon documentary evidence to establish the commission of the alleged offence. The gravamen of such pr the dishonor of cheque purportedly issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability. The memo record by way of additional evidence are deemed necessary for the effective and proper adjudication of the matter in hand. It is well established principle of law that, in the interest of justice, valuable evidence that may have been omitted due to an oversight or mistake by either party can be brought on record at any stage of the proceedings, provided it is essential for the just decision of the case. Given the nature of the offence, the evidentiary foundation of the complaint is primarily documentary a thereof necessitates a meticulous examination of the documents forming the substratum of the case. Accordingly, the production and scrutiny of such documentary evidence are vital to the just and proper adjudication of the matter. The evidence, mainly documentary, holds significant importance in the present case, as it is crucial for the complete and fair adjudication of the matter and bears significantly on the issue in dispute. Furthermore, no prejudice would be caused to the accused an opportunity to scrutinize the authenticity and veracity of the question through cross-examination or by presenting his own defence. Moreover, the paramount consideration while deciding an application under ction 311 of Cr.P.C. is whether the evidence sought to be adduced is 6 place and prove on record the memo dated 04.07.2017 issued by the . It appears that the complainant has been instituted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, a provision that predominately relies upon documentary evidence to establish the commission of the alleged offence. The gravamen of such proceedings is on the dishonor of cheque purportedly issued in discharge of a legally memo sought to be place and proved on record by way of additional evidence are deemed necessary for the effective and proper adjudication of the matter in hand. It is well established principle of law that, in the interest of justice, valuable evidence that may have been rsight or mistake by either party can be brought on record at any stage of the proceedings, provided it is essential for the just decision of the case. Given the nature of the offence, the evidentiary foundation of the complaint is primarily documentary and the adjudication thereof necessitates a meticulous examination of the documents forming the substratum of the case. Accordingly, the production and scrutiny of such documentary evidence are vital to the just and proper adjudication of the vidence, mainly documentary, holds significant importance in the present case, as it is crucial for the complete and fair adjudication of the matter and bears significantly on the issue in dispute. Furthermore, no prejudice would be caused to the accused-petitioner, as he shall be afforded an opportunity to scrutinize the authenticity and veracity of the memo in examination or by presenting his own defence. Moreover, the paramount consideration while deciding an application under ction 311 of Cr.P.C. is whether the evidence sought to be adduced is place and prove on record the memo dated 04.07.2017 issued by the . It appears that the complainant has been instituted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, a provision that predominately relies upon documentary evidence to establish the oceedings is on the dishonor of cheque purportedly issued in discharge of a legally place and proved on record by way of additional evidence are deemed necessary for the effective and proper adjudication of the matter in hand. It is well established principle of law that, in the interest of justice, valuable evidence that may have been rsight or mistake by either party can be brought on record at any stage of the proceedings, provided it is essential for the just decision of the case. Given the nature of the offence, the evidentiary nd the adjudication thereof necessitates a meticulous examination of the documents forming the substratum of the case. Accordingly, the production and scrutiny of such documentary evidence are vital to the just and proper adjudication of the vidence, mainly documentary, holds significant importance in the present case, as it is crucial for the complete and fair adjudication of the matter and bears significantly on the issue in dispute. Furthermore, no petitioner, as he shall be afforded memo in examination or by presenting his own defence. Moreover, the paramount consideration while deciding an application under ction 311 of Cr.P.C. is whether the evidence sought to be adduced is AJAY KUMAR 2025.07.30 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- necessary for a just and fair decision of the case and to meet the ends of justice, irrespective of the stage at which the application is filed. 8. the impugned order passed by the Court below. In the considered opinion of this Court, the trial Court has appropriately dealt with the application in question by allowing the same. 9. (i) Magistrate Ist Class, Abohar (ii) trial expeditiously, preferably within 04 months from the date of receipt/production of certificate copy of this order. 10. shall not have any effect on the merits of the case and the proceed further, in accordance with law, without being influenced therefrom. 11. July 30, 202 Ajay -14574-2023 (O&M) necessary for a just and fair decision of the case and to meet the ends of justice, irrespective of the stage at which the application is filed. For the foregoing reasons, this Cou the impugned order passed by the Court below. In the considered opinion of this Court, the trial Court has appropriately dealt with the application in question by allowing the same. In view of the prevenient ratiocination, The impugned order dated Magistrate Ist Class, Abohar does not call for any interference. Ordered accordingly. The trial Court shall make an trial expeditiously, preferably within 04 months from the date of receipt/production of certificate copy of this order. Any observations made and/or submissions noted hereinabove shall not have any effect on the merits of the case and the proceed further, in accordance with law, without being influenced therefrom. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off. , 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: 7 necessary for a just and fair decision of the case and to meet the ends of justice, irrespective of the stage at which the application is filed. this Court does not find any error in the impugned order passed by the Court below. In the considered opinion of this Court, the trial Court has appropriately dealt with the application in atiocination, it is directed as follows: The impugned order dated 13.03.2023 passed by the Judicial does not call for any interference. The trial Court shall make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably within 04 months from the date of receipt/production of certificate copy of this order. Any observations made and/or submissions noted hereinabove shall not have any effect on the merits of the case and the Court below shall proceed further, in accordance with law, without being influenced therefrom. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No necessary for a just and fair decision of the case and to meet the ends of rt does not find any error in the impugned order passed by the Court below. In the considered opinion of this Court, the trial Court has appropriately dealt with the application in it is directed as follows: Judicial onclude the trial expeditiously, preferably within 04 months from the date of Any observations made and/or submissions noted hereinabove shall proceed further, in accordance with law, without being influenced therefrom. AJAY KUMAR 2025.07.30 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document