An application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act filed at the final argument stage is deemed an afterthought aimed at delaying proceedings, justifying the rejection of the revisional court's decision.

Order

19/02/2024

Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 18.09.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Sriganganagar whereby, while allowing the revision petition of respondent no.2, the order dated 20.11.2017 passed by the trial court has been set aside and the application filed by the respondent no.2 under Section 45 of Evidence Act has been allowed.

Brief facts of the case are that the present petitioner had filed a complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act against the respondent no.2. When the matter was at the final stage of argument, the respondent no.2 filed an application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act with the prayer that the document Ex.D/1 may be sent to FSL. The said application came to be dismissed by the learned trial court vide order dated 20.11.2017. Against the said order, the respondent accused filed a revision petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Sriganganagar. The learned Revisinal court allowed the revision petition vide impugned order dated 18.09.2019 and set aside the order dated 20.11.2017.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent accused failed to produce the said document upto the stage of final argument and at the time, when the matter was kept for final arguments, the respondent filed the application for sending the slip allegedly issued by the complainant petitioner to FSL for examination. Moreso when the DW/4 Laxman Singh who is witness of accused himself has categorically stated that he does not know about any transaction between the accused and the complainant and denied any slip being handed over by petitioner Prithviraj to the accused Kor Singh. It is argued that the respondent accused had filed the application only with an intention to delay the matter as all the prosecution as well as defence witnesses have already been examined and therefore, the application was rightly rejected by the trial court. However, the revisional court mechanically allowed the revision petition filed by the respondent accused. It is further submitted that though by way of impugned order, the revisional court directed to send the slip to FSL for examination, however, till date, the same has not been sent to FSL. He placed reliance on the judgment of co- ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Girdhari Pushkarna Vs. State of Raj. & anr. Reported in 201 Cr.L.J 885 , Atul Tiwari Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2017 Raj CANDID 1280 , Janardan Vs. State of Raj. & Anr. Reported in 2015 Raj. CANDID 1857 .

Per contra, counsel for the respondent no.2 argued that the document slip given by the complainant is a relevant piece of document and is necessary to be sent to FSL to prove his innocence and for just decision of case. The order passed by the revisional court is absolutely justified and no interference is called for in the impugned order. Counsel relied upon judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kalyani Baskar Vs. M.s. Sampoornam reported in (2007) 2 SCC 258 , T. Nagappa Vs. Y.r. Muralidhar reported in (2008) 5 SCC 633 , Sumeti Vij Vs. M/s Paramount Tech Fab Industries reported in 2021(2) Civil Court Cases 348 (SC) , judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Bijender Singh Vs. Mukesh Gupta reported in 2018(4) Civil Court Cases 070 .

I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and carefully gone through the documents on record.

Admittedly, the trial court after recording evidence of the prosecution so also the defence witnesses had fixed the matter for final arguments. Thereafter, the respondent accused filed the application under Section 45 of Evidence Act . In the present case, the accused has already got himself examined as well as examined defence witnesses. DW/4 Laxman Singh who is the defence witness has stated that no transaction took place between the petitioner and accused and no slip was given by the complainant to the accused.

Considering all the facts and circumstances of the