The court held that foundational documents essential for a just decision in a cheque dishonor case must be admitted, emphasizing the broad powers under Section 311 Cr.P.C.

JUDGMENT

1. The present petition is filed under section 482 the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C.") read with article 226 of Constitution of India seeking quashing of the orders dated 01.11.2018 and 21.01.2019 passed by Shri Atul Krishna Aggrawal, ACJ-cum-CCJ-cum-ARC, Patiala House Courts. New Delhi, in the Criminal Complaint bearing C.C. No. 1409 of 2017 filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and for Direction(s) etc.

2. The petitioner company/complainant filed a complaint under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 against the respondent by alleging that the respondent in discharging of liability/debt issued seven cheques total amounting to Rs.19,19,854/- and when said cheques were presented for payment were dishonoured by the banker of the accused/respondent i.e Syndicate Bank, INA Colony, New Delhi on the ground of "payment stopped by the drawer". The respondent did not pay the cheque amount despite legal notice dated 05.02.2007.

3. The Board of Directors of the petitioner vide Resolution dated 02.03.2006 appointed Shri Narinder S. Kainth, Regional Legal Counsel North, as Constituent Attorney with further power of delegation to institute legal proceedings on behalf of the petitioner. Thereafter Shri Narinder S. Kainth vide letter of Authorisation dated 25.09.2006 sub delegated the powers to Shri Sanjay Mittal and appointed him as authorised representative of petitioner in the present complaint. The petitioner subsequently appointed new authorized representative and lastly Shri Anil Rajput was appointed as authorized representative of the petitioner vide letter of Authority dated 25.01.2018 which was signed by Shri Narinder S. Kainth in pursuance of the power of attorney dated 18.10.2012.

4. The petitioner had examined Anil Rajput as CW-2 who exhibited Board Resolution dated 02.03.2006 as exhibit CW-1/A. However, the CW-2 could not exhibit letter of Authorisation dated 25.09.2006 in favour of Sanjay Mittal through whom the present complaint was instituted in terms of the Board Resolution dated 02.03.2006 and the power of Attorney dated 18.10.2012 which are relevant documents. However, the petitioner witness CW-2 wrongly stated that he would not rely upon the documents exhibited CW-1/A i.e. Board Resolution dated 02.03.2006. CW-2 was partly cross-examined on 10.08.2018 and subsequently also and his cross-examination was completed on 25.10.2018 and was accordingly discharged. The petitioner after realising in examination in chief of CW-2 filed an application for permission to file supplementary affidavit in evidence for marking certain documents left out from marking as exhibits.

5. The case was fixed for hearing on 01.11.2018 and on that day an application seeking permission to file supplementary affidavit of CW-2/Anil Rajput was filed alongwith the copy of Power of Attorney. The said application was dismissed vide order dated 01.11.2018, the relevant portion of this order is reproduced as under:

This application is moved without citing any provision of law. From the facts of the application, it appears to be moved under Section 311 Cr.P.C. Through this application, complainant wants to file supplementary evidence affidavit of CW2 Sh. Anil Rajput stating that one Power of Attorney dated 18.10.2012 as Ex. CWl/A has to be exhibited along with dispatch proof of legal notice as Ex. CW1/H6. However perusal of his testimony dated 10.08.2018 shows that CW2 had sp