The production of additional documents by a complainant in a trial, even after cross-examination has commenced or partially concluded, is permissible if it serves the principle of bringing the best evidence on record, provided the accused is given adequate opportunity to challenge the veracity of such documents.

Order

The petitioners/accused, challenging the order passed by the trial court in STC.No.4223 of 2024 dated 13.03.2026 directing the respondent/complainant to mark the bank statement and income tax returns, have filed this quash petition.

2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the respondent/complainant cannot be permitted to fill up the lacuna in the case, and that too, after the detailed cross-examination conducted by the petitioners, wherein questions were raised regarding the bank statements and income tax returns which would only pre-close the defence of the petitioners/accused. 3. Considering the submissions and perusal of the materials, it is seen that the petitioners are facing trial for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act in STC.No.4223 of 2024. The petitioner had cross-examined PW1/complainant in detail. During the course of cross examination, the financial capacity of the respondent was questioned, and specific questions were put with regard to the bank statements and income tax returns. Subsequent thereto, the respondent/complainant filed a petition seeking permission to produce these documents, which the trial court allowed.

4. It is seen that the mere marking of the bank statements and income tax returns does not, by itself, establish the wherewithal of the respondent. The petitioner can question the veracity and relevance of the documents. In adjudicatory proceedings, it is preferable that the best evidence is brought on record. In the present case, the respondent/complainant is ready to produce the bank statements and income tax returns, on such production, the petitioner will have full opportunity to test the veracity of these documents through cross-

examination.

5. In view of the above, this court finds that no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Trial Judge and is, therefore, not inclined to entertain the petition. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.