Judgment

Mrs. Manjari Nehru Kaul, J.

The petitioner is impugning the order dated 20.03.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad vide which revision petition preferred by the respondent-complainant against the dismissal of his application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C.’) was allowed and the latter was allowed to examine three witnesses by way of additional evidence in CIS No.NACT/5317/2015.

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this case are that the complaint in question was filed against the petitioner-accused (hereinafter referred to as ‘accused’) on the allegations that 7/8 years ago, the accused had gotten acquainted with the respondent-complainant (hereinafter referred to as ‘complainant’) since the latter was his counsel in a case. Thereafter, the accused and the complainant developed friendly relations with each other. The accused, being aware of the fact that the complainant was owner of a property in village Bhondsi and was going to sell it induced him to invest in a diagnostic centre. The complainant gave a sum of Rs. 35 lakhs on 10.05.2014 in his chamber No.320 in the District Court Compound, Faridabad in the presence of two witnesses. The said amount had been received by the complainant after selling his property in village Bhondsi. Thereafter, the complainant was induced yet again to pay a sum of Rs.50 lakhs for the installation of machines in the laboratory. After taking the abovementioned amount from the complainant, the accused started avoiding him. On being approached and asked, the accused assured the complainant that he would try to pay most of the amount in the month of December, 2014. On 05.12.2014, the accused issued two cheques drawn on ICICI Bank of Sector 15 Branch, Gurgaon dated 06.12.2014 in the sum of Rs.23 lakhs and another cheque dated 22.12.2014 of Rs.27 lakhs in discharge of his abovesaid liability. The complainant presented the abovesaid cheques for encashment which were dishonoured by the bank on the ground that the “Drawer’s Signatures Differs”. The complainant served a legal notice dated 08.01.2015 upon the accused calling him to make payment of the cheque amount within 15 days of receipt of the notice, but in vain. Consequently, a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, ‘the NI Act’) was instituted by the complainant and the accused was summoned to face trial.

3. During trial an application was filed by the complainant under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. for examining three witnesses namely S.P. Tyagi, Advocate, father of the complainant; clerk/cashier of ICICI Bank Branch of Sector 15, Gurugram and, the Assistant Record Keeper, Sub Registrar, Office Sohna. The said application was dismissed by the Trial Court on 17.04.2018 on the ground that numerous opportunities had been availed of by the complainant for producing evidence.

4. The complainant assailed the order passed by the Trial Court dated 17.04.2018 by way of a revision before the Revisional Court. The Revisional Court while allowing the revision held that the complainant could not be surprised by putting documents on record at the last stage of trial without the same having been put to him during his cross-examination.

5. Learned counsel for the accused inter alia contends that the impugned order suffers from patent illegality having been passed in gross violation of the settled principles of law.

6. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the accused that the application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. was moved by the complainant at a highly belated stage on 17.10.2018, when the case was fixed for arguments, which clearly indicated that it