JUDGMENT

Rajesh Bhardwaj, J.

The petitioner has approached this Court praying for setting aside the order dated 12.04.2023, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh in a Criminal Appeal vide which an application under Section 391 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.

2. Adumbrated facts of the case are that the petitioner had been prosecuted in a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, filed by the respondent. It had been alleged in the complaint that the petitioner-accused approached the complainant with a desire to invest and trade in the securities. They entered into an agreement and the petitioner was allotted unique client Code No.11DS95. In order to discharge his legal liability towards the complainant under the agreement signed between both of them, the petitioner issued a cheque No.821527, dated 10.02.2010 amounting to Rs.23,00,000/- in favour of the complainant with an assurance that the cheque would be paid on its presentation before the Bank. However, on presentation before HDFC Bank, the same was dishonoured with remarks "Payment Stopped by Drawer". Faced with the situation, the complainant-respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial Court summoned the accused-petitioner and on the conclusion of the trial, the allegations made against the petitioner were found to have been proved and hence, the trial Court held the petitioner guilty vide order dated 17.08.2016 and sentenced the petitioner by awarding one year rigorous imprisonment under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and further directing the petitioner to pay a compensation to the tune of Rs.23,00,000/- in terms of Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. to the complainant. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the learned Appellate Court, which is pending adjudication. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner filed an application under Section 391 Cr.P.C. for adducing further/additional evidence by way of calling the record/account of share holding of appellant-accused, which had not been produced by the respondent-complainant. However, the learned Appellate Court i.e. the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh declined the same vide impugned order dated 12.04.2023. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner is before this Court by way of filing the present petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the learned trial Court has miserably failed in appreciating the scope of Section 391 Cr.P.C. and the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that summoning of record as prayed for was essential for the decision of the case. He submits that the respondent-company charged commission/brokerage at the rate of 0.4 per cent from the client i.e. the petitioner on the value of transaction each time for normal mode. He submits that perusal of the deposition of CW-2 Ajit Baluni is clear enough to show that the respondent-company was charging brokerage at the rate of 0.4 per cent. He submits that for commission/brokerage for a sum of Rs.23 lacs, there must be trading of shares for Rs.46 crores, but in the present case, there was no such trading qua the shares of the petitioner. He submits that CW-2 Ajit Baluni had deposed in his cross-examination that the petitioner had invested Rs.10,19,000/- on different dates. He submits that from the perusal of the deposition of CW-2 Ajit Baluni, who was authorized representative of the company it is proved that two accounts were being maintained by the respondent-company. It was submitted that the entire case of the