The court has broad discretionary power under Sections 311 and 91 of the Cr.P.C. to allow additional evidence essential for a just decision, even after the closure of evidence.

Judgment

Mr. Deepak Gupta, J.

This order shall dispose of three petitions titled above, as all of them have arisen out of the same proceedings.

2. By way of CRM-M-52219 of 2018 filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., prayer has been made to set aside order dated 20.10.2018 (Annexure P.9), whereby application of respondent No.2 (complainant of the FIR) under Section 311 Cr.P.C read with Section 91 Cr.P.C., for production of the additional evidence/ documents, in a case arising out of FIR No.117 dated 08.06.2006 registered under Section 420 , 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC at Police Station Division No.5, District Ludhiana, pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana, has been allowed.

3. By way of CRM-M-16215 of 2019, complainant of the case, namely, Rajesh Pal, has assailed the order dated 11.02.2019 (Annexure P.2), passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana, closing the prosecution evidence and also the order dated 11.03.2019 (Annexure P.3) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana dismissing the revision petition against the order dated 11.02.2019, during the trial of the afore-said case.

4. CRM No.45666 of 2018, is a letter dated 13.12.2018 received from District and Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, forwarding the letter No.340 dated 11.12.2018 of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana praying for extension of time to conclude the trial, in the light of order dated 02.07.2018 passed by this Court in CRR No.3249 of 2016.

5. The background facts of the case, as emerge on perusal of the paper book are as under: -

(i) Complainant of the FIR, namely, Rajesh Pal is having a shop M/s Pirthi Chand Kaushal, Grain Market, Khanna, District Ludhiana. It was alleged that few years back, M/s Om Parkash Rice Mill situated near Sahnewal, District Ludhiana had purchased rice from the complainant against which an amount of ¹ 14,68,466.80 was outstanding. In order to recover the amount, a recovery suit was filed on 11.05.1990 by M/s Pirthi Chand Kaushal against M/s Om Parkash Rice Mill, which was decreed ex-parte on 31.05.1990. M/s Om Parkash Rice Mill consisted of five partners including one Ramesh Kumar. In order to realise the decretal amount, the complainant (decree holder) filed the execution petition, in which 14 kanal 16 marlas of land of the judgment debtor i.e., M/s Om Parkash Rice Mill was attached. The sale of the attached land was about to be confirmed, when one Ram Murti filed objections in the execution petition submitting that sale cannot be confirmed qua 02 kanal 19 marlas of land, as he had purchased said land from Ramesh Kumar by way of sale deed dated 07.11.1989 i.e., prior to even filing of the recovery suit. On receiving said objections, the sale qua property measuring 02 kanal 19 marlas of the attached land was adjourned sine die; whereas executing Court confirmed the sale qua the remaining area. The order was duly mutated in the revenue record.

(ii) It was alleged by complainant Rajesh Pal that taking benefit of the sine qua order qua 02 kanal 19 marlas of land, accused Gulzar Singh by forging the revenue record and by forging the signatures of Ram Murti, prepared a Power of Attorney of said Ram Murti and sold the land measuring 02 kanal 19 marlas to Harbans Singh in 1994 and, thereafter, Harbans Singh further sold the land to Kulwinder Singh and Raghbir Singh. It was alleged that all t