NEEL KANTH INDUSTRIES Vs. M.K. INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) In complaint under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act filed by M/s. Neel Kanth Industries through Sushil Kumar, authorised signatory, an application was filed by the complainant to produce and prove the following documents:

(3.) The complainant has also sought permission to examine Anita Aggarwal, proprietor of the complainant firm as a witness. The application was dismissed by the learned trial Court with the observations in para 3 as follows: After hearing arguments from both the parties and perusal of the case file shows that in the present case, cross-examination of the complainant was completed on 12.04.2018 and all the relevant questions regarding proprietorship/authority letter have been asked by defence counsel to the complainant. Thereafter, the present application has been filed which shows that the present application has been filed only to fill up the lacuna of the case. It is well settled law that an application under section 311 of Cr.P.C, 1973 cannot be allowed to fill up the lacunas of the case. Further, the complainant did not mention any sufficient cause for not leading the alleged evidence at the time of recording of preliminary evidence. Furthermore, if the present application is allowed at this stage, denovo trial will start and serious prejudice will be caused to the accused. Hence, in these facts and circumstances, the present application is not maintainable and is dismissed.