IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on : 03.02.2026 Pronounced on : 25.02.2026 M/s Supertech Machines Pvt. Ltd.

..... Petitioner VERSUS M/s Ebullient Cables Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

..... Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Argued by : Mr. S.K. Garg Narwana, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vishal Garg Narwana, Advocate, Mr. Nitin Sachdeva, Advocate and Ms. Nancy Antwal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Akhil Sharma, Advocate and Mr. Vidul Kapoor, Advocate for the respondents.

*****

SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.

Aggrieved of the order dated 07.03.2020, whereby the application under Section 391 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been allowed, passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge Faridabad, hereinafter being referred to as ‘impugned order’, the present revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner/complainant, hereinafter being referred to as ‘petitioner’ only.

2. The abovementioned order has been passed in an appeal, on an application under Section 391 Cr.P.C., filed by the respondents/convicts. By allowing the abovementioned application the respondents/convicts, hereinafter being referred to as ‘respondents’ only, were permitted to lead additional evidence at appellate stage.

3. Briefly stating the facts emerging from record are that, that for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 138/142 of Negotiable Instruments Act, a complaint was filed by the petitioner against the respondents. In the abovementioned complaint seven accused were prosecuted, and by virtue of judgment of conviction dated 04.12.2018 the abovementioned complaint culminated into conviction of the respondents. As a result thereof, vide order of even date on quantum of sentence, all the respondents were awarded the sentence, accordingly.

4. Aggrieved of the abovementioned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the respondents preferred an appeal in the Court of Sessions. The abovementioned appeal is being dealt with by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Faridabad, hereinafter being referred to as ‘Appellate Court’ only.

5. In the abovementioned appeal, the application under Section 391 of CrPC was moved by the respondents, on the ground that during the course of trial, the petitioner had taken a plea that in order to prove existing liability, the petitioner had taken a stand that the petitioner had sent a performa invoice (Ex.C-10) through courier to the respondents. According to respondents the receipt issued by courier company was proved by the petitioner on record, and it was showing that service of ‘Mahavir Courier Service Pvt. Ltd.’ Faridabad was taken for the delivery of performa invoice (Ex.C-10). As per respondents, the petitioner was duly cross-examined on the abovementioned point, and that on the basis of personal efforts made by the respondents, it was found that the receipt relied upon by the petitioner was never issued by the abovenamed courier company. The respondents further alleged that thereafter, the respondents approached the police and requested to conduct an enquiry with regard to the same issue. As per respondents the enquiry had been conducted by the police and the report was submitted.

6. By virtue of abovementioned application, the respondents sought permission to examine the concerned person of Courier Company, along with record. In addition to above the concerned official of Economic Offences Wing of Faridabad Police, along with Enquiry Report, too, was sought to be examined.

7. The abovementioned application was contested by the petitioner. It was alleged by the petitioner that the application under Section 391 of CrPC was moved with a sole motive to frustrate the petitioner, and force the petitioner to enter into settlement with the respondents. According to petitioner, at the time of trial adequate opportunity was afforded to the respondents to lead their evidence in defence. It was also alleged by the petitioner that in defence evidence the respondents had sought examinat