Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 41382
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. NIRMAL KUMAR, J
Natesan Harihara Kirshnan – Appellant
Versus
R.Sridhar Arasu – Respondent
STC Nos. 4182 and 4183 of 2017 | Crl.M.P. Nos. 948 and 947 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mrs.T.Hemalatha for M/s.Swaminathan Law Associates
Best available evidence can be produced at any stage of trial, subject to proof, admissibility, and opportunity to opposite party.
Headnote:Statute Analysis: Facts of the Case:
Findings of Court:
Issues:
Ratio Decidendi:
Result:
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner challenges court order allowing invoices. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. document production allowed subject to proof and opportunity. (Para 3 , 4) |
COMMON ORDER
The petitioner/accused is facing trial underSection 138of theNegotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and has challenged the order passed by the Trial Court in Crl.M.P. Nos. 948 and 947 of 2025 dated 26.03.2026 in STC Nos. 4182 and 4183 of 2017.
2. The contention of the petitioner is that the case had already reached the final stage, namely the stage of arguments. At that juncture, the respondent/complainant, with an intention to fill up the lacunae in the evidence, filed petitions seeking permission to mark 11 invoices. According to the petitioner, the said invoices have no relevance to the case on hand and cannot be permitted to be marked merely because they are produced. It is further contended that the complainant himself admitted that the transactions between the parties were cash transactions. In such circumstances, the invoices would serve no useful purpose. The petitioner further submits that permitting the marking of such documents at this belated stage would only protract the proceedings and cause prejudice to the defence. It is also contended that the Trial Court, without properly considering these aspects, mechanically allowed the petitions.
3. Considering the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record, it is seen that the matter is at the stage of final arguments. The respondent/complainant now seeks to produce 11 invoices, which according to him would support and further substantiate his case. It is a settled principle in adjudicatory proceedings that the best available evidence should be brought on record. The copies of the said documents would be furnished to the petitioner, who would have sufficient opportunity to disprove the claim of the respondent. Further, the documents can be marked subject to proof, admissibility, and relevancy, which to be decided by the Trial Court.
4. In view of the above, the contention of the petitioner that the respondent is attempting to fill up lacunae in the case by producing the said documents at this stage is not sustainable. Accordingly, these Criminal Original Petitions are dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed
