M/S Atwal Sunder Marketing PVT. LTD. And Ors vs. M/S Gaurav Electronics

Facts

The petitioners, M/s Atwal Sunder Marketing Pvt. Ltd. and others, sought to quash an order dated May 15, 2024, passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ludhiana. This order allowed an application filed by the complainant under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) to lead additional evidence. The original complaint was filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, alleging an amount of Rs. 1,12,13,200 was due to the complainant from the petitioner for the supply of electronics. The petitioner had claimed the cheques were security cheques and had been misused. The complainant sought to examine a GST record keeper as an additional witness when the case was at the stage of complainant's evidence.

Held

The High Court held that the Judicial Magistrate First Class did not err in allowing the complainant's application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. The Court referred to established principles governing Section 311 Cr.P.C., emphasizing that the power is discretionary and should be exercised judiciously to discover truth and ensure a just decision. The Court found that the witness the complainant intended to examine was crucial, as the entire case rested on that evidence. Allowing this examination would not cause prejudice to either party and would provide the petitioner an opportunity to rebut the evidence. The Court cited V.N. Patil vs. K. Niranjan Kumar and Ors. and Zahira Habibullah Sheikh and Ors. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. to support the principle that the aim of every court is to discover truth and that the discretionary power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. must be exercised for strong and valid reasons to meet the ends of justice. The Court found no illegality, perversity, or infirmity in the impugned order of the trial court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Judicial Magistrate First Class erred in allowing the complainant's application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. without providing specific findings on the petitioners' objections, thereby failing to address the grounds raised in opposition? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning Section 311 Cr.P.C. and principles of fair trial). Petitioner's arguments: The Magistrate committed an error by allowing the application without addressing the petitioners' objections. The complainant was attempting to evade the implications of their cross-examination where they failed to produce bills and e-way bills. The petitioners had warned of potential fabrication of evidence, which they believe has now occurred. The complainant was aware of the evidence and witness prior to cross-examination, and the witness was not initially listed. Respondent's arguments: The examination of the GST record keeper is essential for the just adjudication of the case to prove the petitioner's liability for the balance price of goods purchased. This examination would not hamper the accused's case but would aid in arriving at a just decision.