Disposed

Arvind Pal Singh v. Canara Bank

Punjab & Haryana HC23 May 2012CRM-M/21336/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought quashing of an order dismissing his application for additional evidence in a cheque dishonour case. Noting he had deposited the interim costs of respondents, the High Court made the order of one opportunity absolute and disposed of the petition.

What did the court decide?

The conditional costs order made by the coordinate bench on August 02, 2011, was made absolute; the petition was disposed of accordingly.

Arvind Pal Singh Vs Canara Bank — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

Criminal Misc.No.M-21336 of 2011

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Criminal Misc.No.M-21336 of 2011(O&M)

¶5

Date of Decision:23.05.2012

¶6

Arvind Pal Singh ......Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Canara Bank .....Respondent

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR.

¶10

Present: Mr.Veneet Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶11

Nemo for the respondent.

¶12

¶13

MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR, J.(oral)

¶14

Tersely, the facts and material, which require to be noticed, for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record are that, complainant Canara Bank, respondent(for brevity “the complainant”) filed a criminal complaint(Annexure P-1) against the petitioner-accused Arvind Pal Singh under Section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act.

¶15

Having completed all the codal formalities, the trial was concluded and the case was listed for passing of final order. During the pendency of the complaint case, the petitioner moved an application(Annexure P-2) to lead additional evidence. The prayer of the petitioner was refuted and the complainant filed the reply(Annexure P-3) to the application. The trial Court dismissed the application(Annexure P-2) filed by the petitioner, by means of impugned order dated 20.05.2011(Annexure P-4).

¶16

The petitioner did not feel satisfied and preferred the present petition, to quash the impugned order(Annexure P-4), invoking the provisions of Section

¶17

Criminal Misc.No.M-21336 of 2011

¶18

¶19

482 Cr.P.C.

¶20

During the course of preliminary hearing, a Coordinate Bench of this Court (Ajai Lamba, J., as his Lordship then was) passed the following order on August 02, 2011:-

¶21

“This petition has been filed against order dated 20.5.2011(Annexure P-4) whereby application of the petitioner(accused) for bringing additional evidence has been dismissed, essentially on the ground that evidence sought to be brought on record was known to the petitioner-accused. The evidence was not brought on record while trial was continuing. The application has been filed at the point in time when the case is fixed for final arguments, after conclusion of all proceedings.

¶22

Learned counsel contends that only one opportunity be given to bring the entire evidence on record.

¶23

Notice of motion for 19.9.2011.

¶24

I have taken note of the fact that the complaint relates to September 2005. Even the impugned order was passed on 20.5.2011.

¶25

Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner may be allowed one opportunity, however, subject to payment of Rs.25,000/- as costs, to the respondent for causing delay.

¶26

It is made clear that the Trial Court shall stay the proceedings in case deposit in the name of the respondent, to the tune of Rs.25,000/-, as ordered above, is made.”

¶27

As is evident from the record that, one opportunity was granted to the petitioner, to produce his additional evidence, subject to the payment of Rs.25,000/- as costs to the respondent for causing delay.

¶28

At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record true copy of the order dated 06.09.2011, which would reveal that the petitioner has already deposited the amount of Rs.25,000/- as costs in the trial Court, by way of draft bearing No.002419 dated 06.08.2011. The said amount has been duly received by the counsel for the complainant vide his separately recorded statement dated 06.08.2011.

¶29

Criminal Misc.No.M-21336 of 2011

¶30

¶31

Meaning thereby, it stands proved on record that the petitioner has already deposited and the complainant has duly received the conditional cost. Therefore, the instant petition is accepted in the same terms and the earlier order dated August 02, 2011 passed by this Court, is hereby made absolute.

¶32

The petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶33

May 23, 2012 ( M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR) seema JUDGE

Arvind Pal Singh v. Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arvind Pal Singh v. Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pardeep Kumar and Others Vs State of Punjab and Another

Jaswant Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and Others

Jasmeet Kaur and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Darshan Pal Toora and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Pardeep Kaur Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Sant Ram & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Anr.