BHUSHAN THAPAR Vs. GANESII STEEL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. filed by the Petitioner challenging the orders dated 20. 5. 1999 passed by the Judicial magistrate dismissing the applications of the complainant - petitioner under section 311, Cr. PC, for additional evidence and the orders dated 11. 11. 1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, dismissing the revision petition filed by the complainant -petitioner, challenging the said orders dated 20. 5. 1999 passed by the Judicial Magistrate.

(2.) IN the petition, it was alleged by the complainant-petitioner that he had filed criminal complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the accused-respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in respect of the dishonouring of the various cheques. It was further alleged that the complainant -petitioner had also filed a civil suit against the accused-respondents for recovery of the disputed amount. In the said suit the accused-respondents had denied the execution of the receipts and the execution of the cheques. It was alleged that in the criminal complaint, the complainant-petitioner moved an application dated 14. 3. 1997 under Section 311, Cr. P. C. , for the specimen writing of Hira Lal, father of accused - respondent for the purpose of comparison, to prove that the cheques in question were filled by Hira Lal, father of the accused - respondent but, subsequently, Hira Lal had died. It was alleged that in Criminal Misc. 22634-M of 1996, this Court, vide order dated 7. 2. 1997, had given two more opportunities to the petitioner for leading evidence and in pursuance thereof, two more opportunities were given and the evidence of the petitioner was closed by the Trial Court vide order dated 27. 5. 1997. It was further alleged that, subsequently, in the civil suit, the petitioner came to know that above said Hira Lal had retired as a Teacher and, thereupon, the petitioner summoned the service record of said Hira Lal and after comparison of the handwriting, it came on the record that those cheques were filled up by Hira lal, father of the accused-respondent. It was alleged that thereupon the petitioner moved application under Section 311. Cr. P. C. , for summoning and examination of the Clerk concerned from the office of the Accountant general, Punjab, and from the office of the District Education officer and from the office of the ATO, with the relevant record pertaining to Hira Lal, in order to prove that those cheques were filled up by Hira Lal, father of the accused-respondent. It was alleged that the learned trial Magistrate, vide orders dated 20. 5. 1999, wrongly dismissed the said application of the complainant -petitioner on the ground that the applications had been filed in order to delay the proceedings. It was alleged that the revision petition filed by the petitioner before the Sessions Court were also wrongly dismissed vide orders dated 11. 11. 1999. It was accordingly prayed that the orders passed by the Courts below be set aside and the petitioner be given opportunity to examine the witnesses by way of additional evidence in the interest of justice.

(3.) NO reply was filed. In fact, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submitted that no reply was required. However, he had contested the petition.