IMPORTANT POINT
The accused has the right to challenge the financial capacity of the complainant and to show that the complainant never had any financial capacity to advance the amount claimed to have been advanced.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioner-accused filed an application under Section 311 of Cr.PC for allowing him to produce the BPL record of the respondent-complainant for the years 2011 to 2016. (The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience).

2. It was asserted that the accused had proved copies of various complaints filed by the complainant before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM), Court No. 1, Paonta Sahib, learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Court No.2, Paonta Sahib and learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Shillai, District Sirmour. The total amount involved in the complaints was around Rs.50 lacs. The complainant stated in his cross-examination that he had no source of income except agricultural land. The complainant was a member of the Below Poverty Line (BPL) family for five years. A person belonging to the BPL category earns less than Rs.6400/- per month in rural areas and Rs.11,850/- per month in urban areas. The complainant also constructed a pucca house at Paonta Sahib and Village Shakoli. He claimed that he had advanced a loan of more than Rs.50.00 lacs to various persons. Hence, it was prayed that the application be allowed and the record showing that the complainant was a member of Below Poverty Line from the year 2011 to 2016 be proved by examining the Secretary of Gram Panchayat at Sakholi.

3. The application was opposed by filing a reply.

4. Learned Trial Court held that the statement of the accused was recorded on 14.12.2021. He failed to produce the evidence despite many opportunities. He examined one witness on 28.4.2022. Subsequently, he filed an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., which was allowed and the accused was permitted to produce the additional evidence. The statements of two witnesses were recorded. The matter was listed for arguments when another application was filed. The conduct of the accused showed that he wanted to prolong the proceedings. Therefore, the application was dismissed.

5. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the learned Trial Court, the present petition has been filed asserting that the learned Trial Court erred in dismissing the application. Basic principles of criminal justice were violated while dismissing the application. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the order passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside.

6. The petition is opposed by filing a reply making preliminary submissions regarding the lack of maintainability and cause of action, and the accused being estopped from filing the present application by his act and conduct. The contents of the application were denied on merits. It was asserted that the accused had sought time to lead defence evidence. He failed to lead defence evidence despite repeated opportunities. He had earlier filed an application under Section 311 of Cr.PC which was allowed. No reason has been assigned for not filing the present application earlier. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

7. I have heard Mr. Shyam Singh Chauhan, learned Counsel for the petitioner-accused and Mr. Prakash Sharma, learned Counsel for the respondent-complainant.

8. Mr. Shyam Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner-accused submitted that the learned Trial Court erred in dismissing the application solely on the ground of the delay. Evidence sought to be produced on record was relevant and could not have been ignored simply on the grounds of delay. The other party can always be compensated in terms of money for the delay and the delay is no reason to dismiss the application. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the order passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside.

9. Mr. Prakash Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent-complainant submitted that there is no infirmity in the orders passed by the learned Trial Court. It was rightly held t