MANDEEP SINGH Vs. RAMESH CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the rejection of application under Sec. 311 Crimial P.C. the petitioner has filed the instant petition.

(2.) A complaint at the instance of the petitioner under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act is pending adjudication before the learned trial Magistrate. It was claimed therein that respondent had borrowed a sum of Rs. 72,000.00 but had not returned the same and had executed an agreement and also pronote acknowledging the receipt of the aforesaid amount. The petitioner was unable to file the said pronote alongwith the complaint as the same was not traceable. However, the fact qua execution of the pronote was specifically mentioned in the agreement that had been placed on record. While leading evidence, the petitioner duly proved the agreement Ext.C1/A that was executed by the respondent on 02.05.2012 acknowledging his liability. It is after tracing the pronote the petitioner moved an application for production of the same, which as observed above, has been rejected by the learned Court below by concluding that the document, if allowed to come on record at this stage, will result in loss to the accused especially when he has disclosed his evidence.

(3.) At the outset, this Court is firstly required to deal with the scope and ambit of Sec. 311 Crimial P.C. The provisions have been considered in detail by the Honourable Supreme Court in State of Haryana versus Ram Mehar and others, 2016 8 SCC 762, wherein the entire law on the subject was discussed in detail in the following manner:-