Anil Saxena vs Jai Parkash Aggarwal on 25 September, 2012

[Cites 4, Cited by 9]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Anil Saxena vs Jai Parkash Aggarwal on 25 September, 2012

Bench: M.M.S. Bedi

CRM M-37629 of 2011                                          [1]




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

                                CHANDIGARH.

                                 CRM M-37629 of 2011

                                 Date of Decision: September 25, 2012

Anil Saxena

                                      .....Petitioner

              Vs.

Jai Parkash Aggarwal

                                      .....Respondent


CORAM:        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI.

                          -.-

Present:-     Mr.Atul Lakhanpal, Sr. Advocate with
              Mr. R.S. Chahal, Advocate
              for the petitioner.

              Mr. R.P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate
              for the respondent.


                    -.-

M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL)

The petitioner Anil Saxena is facing proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act initiated by complainant-respondent Jai Parkash Aggarwal. While the case was at the stage of production of defence evidence, petitioner accused- after availing 20 opportunities filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to re-summon complainant Jai Parkash Aggarwal pleading in the application that Jai Parkash intentionally CRM M-37629 of 2011 [2] did not produce two documents i.e. balance sheet of his firm and another balance sheet of Western Electronics, belonging to the complainant. It was averred in the application that the complainant may be recalled so that he may be cross-examined on these two documents by putting these documents to the complainant.

Counsel for the complainant has submitted that the documents which are sough to be put to the complainant in cross-examination are not disputed documents and that the said two balance sheets have already been produced by the complainant in one of the complaints titled M/s Western Electric and Scientific Works Vs. Anil Saxena. Counsel for the complainant- respondent has submitted that the complainant will not have any objection in case the two documents i.e. balance sheets are taken on record and exhibited. However, it has been objected that one of the balance sheets which is sought to be produced on record pertains to M/s Western Electric and Scientific works which has got no connection with the controversy to be adjudicated upon in the present petition under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent and I am of the opinion that as per the provisions of Section 294 of the Cr.P.C. when the genuineness of document is not denied, no formal proof is required for proving the same. Since the documents which are sought to be produced by the petitioner are not denied, it is ordered that in case the petitioner files an application for production of CRM M-37629 of 2011 [3] the two documents i.e. the balance sheets, genuineness of which documents is not disputed such documents will be read in evidence as per the provisions of Section 294 (3) Cr.P.C. It will be open to the petitioner to produce these documents in defence. Even otherwise the said documents can be taken on record being admitted documents subject to any objections to be raised by the respondent- complainant regarding admissibility and relevance of the documents.

With the above liberty to the petitioner, this petition is dismissed.

September 25, 2012                               (M.M.S.BEDI)
 sanjay                                            JUDGE

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Punjab-Haryana High Court