JUDGMENT

Jasjit Singh Bedi, J. - The prayer in the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for setting aside the order dated 01.03.2021 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nabha, whereby the application filed by the petitioner/complainant under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for placing on record the bank statement of the petitioner/complainant in the complaint filed by the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act registered vide COMA 786/2018 dated 11.12.2018 titled as 'Sucha Singh Versus Dharam Singh' has been dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to the effect that the respondent/accused in the month of November, 2015 had taken a cash loan of Rs.7 lakhs from the petitioner/complainant at Nabha. In discharge of his legal liability towards the petitioner/complainant, the respondent/accused had issued a cheque bearing No.000014 dated 08.11.2018 for an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- drawn on Punjab and Sind Bank, New Grain Market Nabha in favour of the complainant. The said cheque came to be dishonoured leading to the filing of the complaint and subsequent summoning of the respondent/accused.

3. The trial proceeded against the accused-respondent. Pursuant to the examination and cross-examination of the complainant, he i.e. the petitioner/complainant moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to place on record his account statement for the month of November, 2015 pertaining to Andhra Bank, Branch Circular Road Near Bouran Gate, Nabha. He sought to establish that an amount of Rs.14,90,000/- had been withdrawn by him a part of which was given to the respondent/accused, who in discharge of his legal liability issued the cheque in question which was subsequently dishonoured.

4. The Court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nabha dismissed the application holding that the application had been filed to fill up a lacuna in the case of the complainant as the application had been filed after the completion of his cross-examination. It is this order dated 01.03.2021 (Annexure P-1) which is under challenge in the present petition.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order dated 01.03.2021 (Annexure P-1) has been passed in a stereo-typic manner without going into the evidence on record and without actually considering the evidentiary value of the document sought to be produced. He contends that the endeavour of the petitioner/complainant is to establish that in fact in November, 2015 the petitioner had withdrawn a sum of Rs.14,90,000/-and a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- out of the said amount was paid to the accused/respondent, in response to which the cheque in question was issued which was dishonoured. He contends that the placing on record/exhibiting of the said account statement even if it amounted to filling up of a lacuna was essential for the just adjudication of the case in terms of Section 311 Cr.P.C. It is further contended that the fact of filling up of a lacuna would by itself remain a subsidiary issue in the larger context of the essentiality of the evidence in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

An oversight can be cured at any stage even if it amounted to the filling up of a lacuna and no side be it the accused or the complainant can take advantage of such an oversight at the instance of either party. He thus prays that the impugned order dated 01.03.2021 (Annexure P-1) ought to be quashed and permission to be granted to the petitioner/complainant to place on record/exhibit the account statement as prayed for in the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused/respondent contends that the application has been filed to fill up a lacuna in the case of the complainant as the examination and cross- examination of the complainant had already taken place. He contends that at no stage prior to the mo