144 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.36256 of 2026 (O&M) Date of Decision:-08.07.2026 Jaspal Singh …..Petitioner. Versus Baljinder Singh .....Respondent. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL ***** Present:- Mr. Lupil Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J. (ORAL) The challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 19.03.2026 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Sirsa, vide which the application moved by the petitioner under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the ‘Cr.P.C.’) for summoning the Supervisor/Record Keeper of Civil Hospital, Ellenabad along with record of attendance of General Duty Assistant (GDA) for the period w.e.f. 01.03.2021 to 31.03.2021, was dismissed. 2. The facts, as emanating from the petition, are that a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, was instituted by the respondent-complainant (Baljinder Singh) against the petitioner (Jaspal Singh). After the conclusion of evidence when the matter was fixed for defence evidence, the petitioner moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking to summon the Supervisor/Record Keeper of Civil Hospital, Ellenabad along with record of attendance of General Duty YAG DUTT 2026.07.10 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CRM-M No.36256 of 2026 (O&M) -2- Assistant (GDA) for the period w.e.f. 01.03.2021 to 31.03.2021. 3. The said application was dismissed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Sirsa, vide order dated 19.03.2026 which led to the filing of the revision petition, which too was dismissed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, vide order dated 30.03.2026 leading to the filing of the present petition. 4. I have heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioner. 5. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that it has come in the testimony of the complainant that he had withdrawn money from his bank on 25.03.2021 and thereafter, he advanced the loan to the petitioner on the same day. He submits that the petitioner wishes to examine the concerned witness in order to prove that he was present in his office on the said date. He submits that both the trial Court and the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, erred in dismissing the application. It has been submitted that an expert was also examined by the respondent-complainant for which due opportunities were granted, but the opportunity to the petitioner to examine the witness under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has erroneously been declined. 6. I have considered the submissions made by learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, but find the same to be devoid of merit. The case of the complainant in the complaint was that he had advanced a loan of Rs.3,00,000/- to the petitioner in March, 2021. Even if he had stated in his evidence that he had withdrawn the said amount from his account on 25.03.2021 and had thereafter, advanced the loan to the petitioner on the same date would not mean that the same would call for examination of YAG DUTT 2026.07.10 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CRM-M No.36256 of 2026 (O&M) -3- witness to prove that on 25.03.2021, the petitioner was present in his office. The complainant is a resident of District Sirsa, whereas the petitioner took a stand that he was present in the Civil Hospital, Ellenabad. The Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, rightly observed that the distance between Ellenabad and Sirsa is not such where the complainant could not have advanced the loan on 25.03.2021 even after withdrawing the same from the bank. The findings recorded by the Revisional Court are as under:- “6. Section 311 Cr.P.C. gives wide powers to the Court to summon, recall or re-examine any witness at any stage of inquiry, trial or other proceedings if such evidence appears to the court to be essential to the just decision of the case. The contention of the learned counsel for revisionist/accused is that as per the complaint of the complainant and his testimony recorded as CW-1, he had alleged to have paid the alleged loan amount to the accused on 25.03.2021 after withdrawing it from his bank on the said date and by examining the witness concerned, he wants to prove attendance of complainant at his work place i.e. Civil Hospital Ellenabad on the same very date i.e. 25.03.2021 and thus, his proved attendance on the said date would prove that the complainant had no occasion to advance the alleged amount to the revisionist on 25.03.2021 at Sirsa as he remained present throughout at Ellenabad in relation to his duty on 25.03.2021. It is necessary to mention here that perusal of the complaint as well as testimony of the complainant recorded as CW-1 establishes on record that there is no single averment made by the complainant that the loan amount in question was advanced by him to the accused YAG DUTT 2026.07.10 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CRM-M No.36256 of 2026 (O&M) -4- on 25.03.2021. In his cross-examination, the complainant had deposed that he made the advancement to the accused in the end of March, 2021 but he does not remember the exact date of advancement. Thus, the date of 25.03.2021 as specifically pointed out to be the date of advancement by the revisionist/accused cannot be said to be established either from the complaint or the testimony of the complainant. Moreover, even if for the sake of arguments, it is believed that the complainant had advanced the loan amount on 25.03.2021 and on the said date, he had also remained present at his work place i.e. Civil Hospital, Ellenabad, even then it cannot be believed that on the said date, he would not have advanced the alleged loan amount because distance between Sirsa and Ellenabad is not such that after the duty hours, the complainant would not have been in a position to visit Sirsa. It is settled proposition of law that power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised to fill up the lacuna and the application in hand as moved by the revisionist seems to be a tool deployed by him to delay the trial of the complaint filed against him.” 7. This Court does not find any illegality in the same, warranting interference by exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction. 8. That being so, the petition is found to be devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (VIKRAM AGGARWAL) July 08, 2026 JUDGE Yag Dutt Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No YAG DUTT 2026.07.10 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.