IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 26.08.2025 Sandeep Kumar ....Petitioner V/s State of Punjab and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. P.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate for the petitioner.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 17.07.2025 (Annexure P-5) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala whereby the application filed by the petitioner (herein) - accused, under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. of 1973 seeking examination of the disputed cheque by Govt. Handwriting and Finger expert through the Government Forensic Science Laboratory, was dismissed

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the impugned order is contrary to both law and the material available on record. The application of the petitioner for examining the Govt. Handwriting and Finger expert has been erroneously dismissed by the Court below which has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner. Learned counsel has further submitted that the cheque in dispute was originally issued for Rs.90,000/- only which was subsequently altered to Rs.4,90,000/- by adding the word “four” in different handwriting and ink. Learned counsel has further iterated that though a private handwriting expert was examined during trial, who supported this plea but his testimony was discarded merely on the ground that he was a private witness. According to learned counsel, the impugned order is ex facie unsustainable in law, being based on mere presumptions and conjectures. It has been further iterated that it is a settled principle of law that additional witness can be summoned in the interest of justice and to ensure a fair trial at any stage. It is further contended by learned counsel that the impugned order is cryptic and devoid of merit and thus, deserves to be set-aside. Hence, the petitioner seeks re-examination of the cheque by a Government expert to substantiate his defence. On the strength of aforesaid submissions, the grant of petition in hand is entreated for.

3. Keeping in view the nature of the matter especially the factum of the case in hand arising out of the criminal complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, this Court does not deem it appropriate to call upon the respondent(s) at this stage.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the available record.

5. It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by this Court in case titled as Karamjit Singh vs. State of Punjab and another: 2024 NCPHHC 24178; relevant whereof reads as under:-

“8.4 As an epilogue to the above rumination, the following principles emerge:

(I) The broad gamut for exercising power by a criminal trial Court under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. are as follows:

(i) The prime factor for considering a plea under Section 311 of Cr,.P.C. is as to whether such evidence “appears to be essential to the just decision of the case.”

(ii) Section 311 of Cr.P.C. can be invoked by a criminal trial Court even when cross-examination of a witness has earlier been foreclosed by a Court order. Such exercise of power by the Court cannot be construed as the concerned Court recalling/reviewing its own order.

(iii) Section 311 of Cr.P.C. empowers a criminal trial Court to even allow further examination/cross-examination of a witness at instance of the prosecution/accused.

(iv) A criminal Court is well within, its judicial discretion, to summon any person as a witness at any stage of proceedings/trial etc. till such Court is seized of the matter.

(v) A criminal trial Court may exercise power under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. on an application made by a party to lis or on its own volition.

(vi) Successive application(s) for summoning same witness for examination/re-examination is not debarred but such a plea deserves to be dealt with exercising a higher degree of circumspection.

(II) No straight jacket formulae can be enumerated regardin