Best available evidence can be brought on record at any stage before conclusion of trial.

ORDER

The petitioner/accused has filed the present petition challenging the order passed by the learned XXVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet Court in Crl.M.P. No.11 of 2026 in C.C. No.3578 of 2017 dated 17.03.2026.

2. The contention of the petitioner is that he is facing prosecution for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 on a complaint filed by the respondent. The case had reached the penultimate stage of arguments. At that stage, the respondent/complainant filed a petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking permission to further examine himself and to mark two additional documents, namely, the Board Resolution and the Hire Purchase Agreement.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that during the earlier cross-examination of P.W.1, Form No.32 dated 25.09.2004 had already been produced in order to establish that, as on the date of the cheque, namely

25.02.2005, the respondent was no longer a Director of the company and therefore, was not competent to prosecute the complaint. It was further submitted that the petitioner had earlier filed Crl.M.P. No.31891 of 2025 contending that the respondent was not an authorised person to institute the complaint. It was also contended that the alleged debt itself was time-barred. According to the petitioner, the present petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. had been filed only to fill up lacunae in the complainant’s case, and the Trial Court erred in allowing the same without properly considering the objections raised by the petitioner.

4. Considering the submissions made and upon perusal of the materials available on record, it is not in dispute that the trial has not yet concluded and that the matter is still pending, though at the stage of arguments. The respondent has filed the petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking permission to mark the Board Resolution and Hire Purchase Agreement. The petitioner is at liberty to raise all objections with regard to the marking and admissibility of the said documents, and the Trial Court shall consider such objections in accordance with law before proceeding further with the trial. It is a settled position of law that the best available evidence should be brought on record during trial. Merely M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

because there has been delay or because the matter has reached an advanced stage, relevant evidence cannot be shut out, if the same is necessary for proper adjudication of the case. Further, the petitioner would have sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the witness with regard to the newly produced documents and raise all the points now canvassed before this Court.

5. In view of the above, this Court finds no reasons to interfere with the order passed by the Trial Court. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed.