HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1061 of 2026 Court No. - 87 HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. Under challenge is the judgment and order dated 07.01.2026 passed by the Presiding Officer, Special Court, N.I. Act, Agra, in Complaint Case No. 10207 of 2021 (Shahadat Ali vs. Ravindra Kumar), under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, Police Station Hari Parvat, District Agra, whereby the learned Presiding Officer has illegally and wrongly rejected the application filed by the revisionist under Section 311 Cr.P.C. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that opposite party no. 2, in collusion with his companion Vinod Kumar, misused two cheques bearing Nos. 420924 and 420925 belonging to the revisionist. The said cheques were allegedly handed over by the revisionist to opposite party no. 2 as security in connection with certain construction work. It is contended that there was no legally enforceable debts or liability, as contemplated under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in respect of the cheques in question. 4. In order to clarify the aforesaid facts, the revisionist filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., along with an affidavit dated 13.01.2026, before the trial court, seeking permission to bring on record the power of attorney dated 27.10.2020 and the notice dated 06.09.2021 sent by the revisionist to opposite party no. 2. The said documents were annexed to the application dated 13.01.2026 and have also been annexed with the present affidavit as Annexure Nos. 2 and 6. 5. It is further submitted that the trial has not yet concluded; therefore, an opportunity to lead evidence ought to be afforded to the revisionist. The application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., it is urged, deserves to be allowed, and the revisionist should be granted an opportunity to place the aforesaid documents, namely, the power of attorney dated 27.10.2020 and the notice dated 06.09.2021, on record. Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Ravindra Kumar .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 6. Learned counsel for the revisionist has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Natasha Singh vs. CBI (State), reported in 2013 (4) SCC (Cri) 828, in support of his submissions. It is well settled that a fair trial must be ensured and that no prejudice should be caused to the complainant. 7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, and in the interest of justice, fair trial, and proper adjudication of the case on merits, the revisionist deserves to be granted an opportunity to submit the aforesaid documents. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 07.01.2026 is hereby set aside. The revisionist is permitted to file the said documents before the trial court within ten days from today. 8. If the revisionist files the said documents within ten days from today, the same shall be accepted by the learned trial court. Thereafter, an opportunity of rebuttal shall be afforded to the accused in accordance with law. 9. In case of default or if any adjournment is sought by the revisionist, this order shall stand vacated automatically. 10. With these observations, the present criminal revision is disposed of. 11. A copy of this order shall be sent to the learned District and Sessions Judge, Ballia, by e-mail for compliance forthwith. February 26, 2026 M. Tarik CRLR No. 1061 of 2026 2 (Abdul Shahid,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHD TARIK High Court of Judicature at Allahabad