IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR-2893-2025 Date of decision: 17.11.2025 SANDEEP KHARB @ SANDEEP KUMAR ….Petitioner Versus M/S SKYLARK FEED PVT. LTD. ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present:- Mr. Vishwajeet, Advocate for the petitioner.

..…

RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL)

Instant criminal revision has been filed for setting aside of the order dated 14.10.2025 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (SD) Safidon whereby the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. moved by the complainant for examination of one-Nitesh Dhull has been allowed.

The brief facts of the case are that a complaint was lodged against the petitioner under the Negotiable Instruments Act (Section 138). After the initial complaint (Annexure P-1) and the issuance of summons, the respondent/complainant's counsel closed their evidence (Annexure P- 2). Subsequently, the petitioner's statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded (Annexure P-3), and the petitioner presented his defense evidence (Annexure P-4). After the defense was closed, the respondent filed an application under section 311 Cr.P.C. (Annexure P-5) seeking to examine an additional witness, Nitesh Dhull, Director of the Complainant firm, which was allowed by the learned trial court. Hence, the present petition.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the trial court has failed to appreciate the fact that prosecution evidence commenced in the year 2020 and evidence was closed by complainant counsel himself. He submits that the application filed by the respondent under section 311 Cr.P.C is a clear abuse of process and is intended to fill up the lacunas. He further contends that the application was filed without a proper explanation for the delay, and is solely meant to delay the proceedings and damage the defense of the petitioner. Hence, it is prayed that present petition be allowed.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the paper book.

Perusal of the impugned order shows that the trial is still at defence evidence and till date no defence evidence has been produced by the petitioner. Vide application under section 311 Cr.P.C., the respondent intended to get the invoices and statement of account produced and proved through additional witness-Nitesh Dhull (Director of the Complainant firm). It is apposite to mention here a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Godrej Pacific Tech. Ltd. v. Computer Joint India Ltd. 2008 (3) RCR (Criminal) 897, wherein it was held that the object underlying Section 311 of Cr.P.C. is that, there may not be failure of justice on account of mistake of either party in bringing the valuable evidence on record, or leaving ambiguity in the statements of the witnesses examined from either side. It has also been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that exercise of jurisdiction under the aforesaid Section is discretionary and, in such circumstances, it may even amount to filling of loopholes, but that is purely a subsidiary factor and cannot be taken into consideration.

In the case of Rajaram Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar and another 2013 (4) EastCrC 108, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has ruled that if Court arrive at a conclusion that additional evidence is necessary, not because it would be impossible to pronounce judgment without it, but because there would be a failure of justice without such evidence being considered, the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. should be allowed.

It is a cardinal rule in the law of evidence that the best available evidence should be brought before the court. In the light of above-mentioned principles of law and the Judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court, no perversity is found in the order passed by the learned trial court while allowing the application filed under section 311 Cr.P.C.

Resultantly, the present petition being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed.

(RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL)

17.11.2025 JUDGE puneet