AMARJIT MALHOTRA Vs. BRIJENDER SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:-

(2.) Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present petition, are that in a complaint filed by present respondent under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, an application was filed by him under Sec. 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for allowing the complainant to lead additional evidence/place on record original document exhibited as Ext.D-1, which was so produced by the accused, as per the averments made in the said application. The reasons given for filing of the same were that during the course of crossexamination of the complainant, the accused had confronted him with document Ext. D-1, which was a photocopy of the account statement written by the complainant in his hands. As per the complainant, at that time, he could not make out that as to what was the intention of the accused behind the production of the said photocopy. Subsequently when he searched the document at his residence, he found the original of Ext. D-1 and after going through the contents of the same, he found that Ext. D-1, especially page-1 thereof was fabricated and doctored. In this background, the application was filed by the complainant under Sec. 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying that he be permitted to lead additional evidence/place said document on record.

(3.) Petitioner filed reply to the said application and opposed the same. As per the averments made in the reply, as the complainant had admitted the contents of Ext.D-1, therefore, his contention that said document was forged was seriously disputed. It was further mentioned in the reply that filing of the application was completely misconceived, as the complainant could not be allowed to fill up the lacuna by filing an application under the provisions of Sec. 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.