Dismissed

Anil Saxena v. Jai Parkash Aggarwal

Punjab & Haryana HC25 Sept 2012CRM-M/37625/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a cheque dishonour case under Section 138 NI Act, the petitioner applied to recall the complainant to cross-examine him on balance sheet documents. The court held that since genuineness of the documents was not denied, they could be read as evidence or taken on record under Section 294 Cr.P.C. despite one document relating to an unrelated firm.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was given liberty to produce the balance sheets as admitted documents in defence under Section 294(3) Cr.P.C.

Anil Saxena Vs Jai Parkash Aggarwal — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CRM M-37625 of 2011 [1]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

¶3

CHANDIGARH.

¶4

CRM M-37625 of 2011

¶5

Date of Decision: September 25, 2012

Anil Saxena

…..Petitioner

Vs.

Jai Parkash Aggarwal

…..Respondent

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

¶12

-.-

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

-.-

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

CRM M-37625 of 2011 [2]

¶19

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.

¶20

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.

¶21

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

¶22

CRM M-37625 of 2011

¶23

[3]

¶24

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.

¶25

With the above liberty to the petitioner, this petition is

¶26

dismissed.

¶27

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

Anil Saxena v. Jai Parkash Aggarwal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Saxena v. Jai Parkash Aggarwal

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

Sonam and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Rajwanti @ Meena and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Narinder Pal Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Karamveer Singh Vs Saroj and Ors.

Jasmel Singh Vs State of Punjab

Anand @ Kake Vs State of Haryana