2025:CGHC:57765 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1360 of 2022

1 - Satish Poddar S/o Girdharilal Poddar Aged About 44 Years Proprietor M/s. Shree Balaji Agencies, R/o Maharaja Gali, Ambikapur, P.S And P.O. Ambikapur, District - Surguja Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s)

versus

1 - Sushri Kalpana Gupta D/o Indeshwar Prasad Gupta Aged About 48 Years R/o Beside Kedia Vastra Bhandar, Deviganj Road, Ambikapur, District - Surguja Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Priyanka Mehta, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Shri Dashrath Kushwaha, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma)

Order on Board

27/11/2025 By way of this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated

01.07.2022 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Ambikapur rejecting the objection of the petitioner to the Exhibited documents Ex.D-1 to D-4 by the respondent in the case of Satish Poddar Vs. Sushri Kalpana Gupta. It is alleged that these documents were never produced by the petitioner and some are photocopies without original signatures, thus ought to have been exhibited or confronted in cross-examination. The learned trial court held that these documents were produced by the petitioner himself and permitted it under Section 163 of the Evidence Act, which the petitioner is disputing as legally erroneous.

2. Facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner, proprietor of Shree Balaji Agencies, sold readymade garments and clothes to the respondents who ran a shop named Maa Mahamaya Faishan. The respondent purchased goods worth Rs. 53 lakhs from the year 2016 to 2017 and paid part of it by cheques which subsequently dishonored due to insufficient funds. Despite legal notice and complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, for recovery of the bounced cheque amounts and during the trial, the respondent counsel exhibited certain documents marked as Ex.D-1 to D-4 purportedly filed by the petitioner/complainant. The petitioner raised objection tot he exhibited documents inter alia contending that these documents were never produced by the petitioner and that some are mere photocopies without original signatures as required by law, thereby no admissible as evidence. The learned CJM, Ambikapur by order dated 01.07.2022 rejected the objection of the petitioner on the ground that these documents were produced by the petitioner himself and allowed their exhibited documents relying on Section 163 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

3. Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the trial court erred in holding the documents Ex.D-1 to D-4 were filed by the petitioner since these do not appear in any of the petitioner’s filed list of documents. She submits that the impugned order is contrary to law as it permits exhibiting of documents which the petitioner never produced or acknowledged, thereby violating the principles of fair trial and evidentiary value. She further submits that the trial court failed to appreciate that Section 163 of the Evidence Act mandates that a document sought to be exhibited must have called for on notice and produced on such notice- ingredients which are absent in the present case. The photocopies without original signatures cannot be confronted or identified under law and the trial court erred in allowed such exhibition and identification during cross-examination. She submits that no such documents appear in the petitioner’s list of documents filed on 26.02.2018,19.09.2019 and 28.12.2019 thereby showing clear misreading and non-application of judicial mind. She therefore submits that the present petition may be allowed and the order impugned be set aside/quash and also allow the petitioner’s objection raised before the trial court against the exhibiting of documents Ex.D-1 to D-4.

4. Counsel for the respondent submits that the documents were earlier suplied by the petitioner’s counsel justifiying re-exhibiting and confrontation of signatures. He argued that the factual dispute on production ca