Ms Meenakshi Apparels Through Its Prop Rakesh Khanna vs. Ms Atam Vallebh Marketing

Facts

The petitioners, M/s Meenakshi Apparels and its proprietor Rakesh Khanna, filed a petition seeking to quash an order dated 12.12.2024 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ludhiana. This order dismissed an application filed by the petitioners under Section 348 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (pari materia with Section 311 of the CrPC). The application sought to place on record a VAT 18 Form related to the complainant firm, M/s Atam Vallabh Marketing. The petitioners are facing trial under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. They sought to produce the VAT 18 Form as additional defence evidence, asserting it was essential for a just decision, as it was supposed to be issued by the respondent-complainant for returned goods.

Held

The High Court held that the petition did not deserve to be allowed. The Court noted that the petitioner had been granted over 30 opportunities to lead defence evidence for approximately two and a half years, and their defence evidence had already been closed. The petitioner had filed multiple applications for producing defence evidence, and six witnesses, including those from the Excise and Taxation and GST Departments, had already been examined. Arguments in the main case had also been advanced. The Court found that the trial Magistrate had passed a detailed and well-reasoned order declining the petitioner's prayer, considering these facts. The petitioner failed to justify the relevance of the proposed defence evidence to the case. Furthermore, the main case was an eight-year-old matter falling under action plan cases, indicating delaying tactics by the petitioner. Therefore, no ground was made out for a contrary opinion.

Key Issues

1. Whether the trial Court erred in dismissing the petitioner's application under Section 348 BNSS (pari materia with Section 311 CrPC) for placing on record VAT 18 Form as additional defence evidence, thereby denying the opportunity to produce defence evidence? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the VAT 18 Form was crucial for the just decision of the case, as it pertained to returned goods and was to be issued by the respondent. They argued that the trial Court wrongly declined their prayer to summon a witness from the Excise and Taxation Department to produce this form, thus denying them the opportunity to present their defence evidence, making the impugned order illegal. Respondent's arguments: The respondent argued that the impugned order was not illegal or infirm. They contended that the petitioner had been seeking opportunities to lead defence evidence for over two and a half years, had moved several applications, and their defence evidence had already been closed, with arguments having been heard. They asserted that the present petition was filed solely to delay the disposal of the old complaint and abuse the process of law.