Mr. Rameshwar Singh Malik, J.: - The instant Criminal Misc. Petition is directed against the order dated 17.8.2009 (Annexure P-5), whereby the application of the respondent moved under Section 311 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘the Cr.P.C.’) was allowed.

2. The short but twin important questions of law that arise for consideration of this court are : (i) What is the object and scope of Section 311 Cr.P. C. ? (ii) whether the learned JMIC, Jalandhar, has exceeded its jurisdiction while passing the impugned order allowing the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., thereby permitting the respondent for reexamining its authorised representative with a view to prove resolution dated 19.3.2004.

3. The facts of the case are hardly in dispute. However, briefly put, the relevant facts are that respondent filed its complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, (for short ‘NI Act’) vide Annexure P-1. During the course of trial, an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was moved vide Annexure P-3 and notice thereof was issued by the learned trial court to the other side. Reply was filed vide Annexure P-4. After hearing both the parties and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned trial court was of the view that although the application was moved at a belated stage, yet it was necessary for just decision of the case to allow the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. It was also observed that no prejudice was going to be caused to the other side, which was also compensated by way of costs. Thus, the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., was allowed vide impugned order dated 17.8.2009 (Annexure P-5).

4. Feeling aggrieved against the above said order, the petitioner has approached this court by way of instant petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended it is not the object and scope of Section 311 Cr.P.C., to allow the application even at the belated stage. He next contended that the learned trial court has exceeded its jurisdiction while passing the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner concluded by submitting that since the complaint Annexure P-1 was filed way back in the year 2002, there could have no scope for authorising any officer or representative of the complainant company by way of resolution dated 19.3.2004, which was sought to be proved through the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. Annexure P-3 . Thus, he prayed that the impugned order was liable to be set aside and the instant petition deserves to be allowed.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent, contended that the object and scope of Section 311 Cr.P.C. was wide enough to entertain, consider and allow the application at any stage of the trial. He further submitted that there was no illegality in the order passed by the learned trial court. The order deserves to be upheld and the present petition was liable to be dismissed being without any merit. Learned counsel, while concluding his arguments, submitted that it was permissible in law for the respondent company to rectify the formal defect, if any, at the initial stage of filing the complaint, only qua the authorisation given by the juristic person to the natural person. To buttress his contention, learned counsel for the respondent also relied upon the judgements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohanlal Shamji Soni Vs. Union of India and another, 1991 Crl.L.J. 1521, M/s M.M.T.C. Ltd., Vs. M/s Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd., 2002 (1) RCR (Crl.) 318 and The Associated Cement Co. Ltd. Vs. Keshvanand, 1998 (2) PLR 812.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance have gone through the record of the case.

8. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised and keeping in view the peculiar fact situation of the present case, this court is of the considered opinion that the present petition is wholly misconceived and bereft of any merit.

9. Since this c