Sumit Kumar Goyal vs State Of Punjab And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 16907 P&H

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                   AT CHANDIGARH

                                             CRM-M-20173-2019
                                             Date of Decision:-15.12.2022

Sumit Kumar Goyal
                                                               .... Petitioner
                                 Versus
State of Punjab and another
                                                             .... Respondents


                         *****


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KARAMJIT SINGH

                         *****

Argued by :-
          Mr. Deepanshu Mehta, Advocate
          for the petitioner.

            Mr. Chaman Lal Pawar, Addl. A.G. Punjab.

            Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate
            for respondent No.2.


                         *****


KARAMJIT SINGH, J.

Petitioner/accused has filed the present petition under Section

482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of order dated 6.2.2019 (Annexure P-1) passed by

the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridkot, whereby an

application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. filed by respondent No.2 was allowed

in a criminal complaint NACT/304/2015 titled Sherinder Singh vs. M/s

Shakti Emporuim.

                                   1 of 5

                                     (2)                        CRM-M-20173-2019

The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2 filed a

criminal complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against

the petitioner with regard to dishonour of cheque and in the said complaint,

the petitioner was summoned and notice of accusation was issued, to which

he did not plead guilty and then trial commenced and during the trial,

respondent No.2 filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to produce

certified copy of the judgment dated 17.10.2018 passed by the Court of

learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridkot whereby petitioner Sumit

Kumar Goyal was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment under Section

138 of Negotiable Instruments Act in a criminal complaint titled Rajiv

Kumar Goyal vs. Shakti Emporium through its authorized signatory Sumit

Kumar Goyal and Ors. The said application moved under Section 311

Cr.P.C. was contested by the petitioner but the same was allowed by the

learned trial Court vide order dated 6.2.2019 (Annexure P-1) and permission

was given to respondent No.2 to place on record the certified copy of the

aforesaid judgment dated 17.10.2018, with an opportunity to the petitioner

to lead evidence in its rebuttal.

The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order has filed the

present petition.

The present petition is contested by respondent No.2.

I have heard the counsel for the parties.

The counsel for the petitioner, while challenging the impugned

order, has submitted that the judgment in question dated 17.10.2018, which

the respondent No.2 intends to produce by way of additional evidence under

2 of 5

(3) CRM-M-20173-2019

Section 311 Cr.P.C. is not between the parties and the said judgment was

passed by the Court concerned in a criminal complaint lodged by third party

namely Rajiv Kumar Goyal against the petitioner and Shakti Emporium

under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and that the said judgment

is not required and has got no relevance for the just decision of the present

case. The counsel for the petitioner while referring to Section 43 of the

Evidence Act has submitted that the said judgment is totally irrelevant for

the adjudication of the present case and even otherwise in an appeal filed by

the petitioner, the operation of the said judgment has been stayed by the

Appellate Court. The counsel for the petitioner while concluding his

arguments has submitted that the impugned order deserves to be set aside

being illegal and perverse.

On the other hand counsel for respondent No.2 while supporting

the impugned order (Annexure P-1) has submitted that there is no infirmity

in the said order. The counsel for respondent No.2 has further submitted that

vide judgment dated 17.10.2018, the petitioner was convicted under Section

138 of Negotiable Instruments Act in a criminal complaint filed by some

third person. The said previous conviction is relevant to show the previous

conduct of the petitioner in such like matters.

I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the

parties.

Undoubtedly, respondent No.2 was not party to a judgment

dated 17.10.2018 passed by the Court of judicial Magistrate, Faridkot

whereby the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment under

3 of 5

(4) CRM-M-20173-2019

Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act in a criminal complaint filed by

third party namely Rajiv Kumar Goyal.

Admittedly, respondent No.2 has filed criminal complaint under

Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner, which is

pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridkot and

respondent No.2 intends to produce certified copy of aforesaid judgment

dated 17.10.2018 by invoking provisions of Section 311 Cr.P.C.

There is no doubt regarding the fact that the judgment dated

17.10.2018 is not inter-parties. The said judgment is relating to conviction

of the petitioner under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

Explanation-2 of Section 54 of Evidence Act provides that evidence

showing any previous conviction is also relevant as evidence of bad

character. Thus the evidence relating to previous conviction (past actions of

a person) in a case of similar nature would be relevant by virtue of aforesaid

statutory provision of law. So the judgment dated 17.10.2018 whereby the

petitioner was convicted under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act,

cannot be said to be totally irrelevant for the purpose of final adjudication in

the present case. However, the evidentiary value of the same would be

evaluated by the learned trial Court at the time of final disposal of a case.

The provision of Section 311 Cr.P.C. can be exercised

irrespective of the stage of trial, if the evidence intended to be produced is

essential to the just decision of the case. Further the learned trial Court

rightly observed that no prejudice would be caused to the accused if the

4 of 5

(5) CRM-M-20173-2019

aforesaid judgment dated 17.10.2018 is taken on record as the petitioner

would get an opportunity to rebut the same.

In the light of the above, this Court is of the view that the

impugned order is not suffering from any illegality or infirmity. So no

interference is called for under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Consequently the present petition is hereby dismissed being

devoid of merits. However, the observations made hereinabove are not to be

construed as expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The parties are

directed to appear before the trial Court on the date already fixed there.

                                           ( KARAMJIT SINGH)
15.12.2022                                      JUDGE
Gaurav Sorot


                     Whether reasoned / speaking?      Yes / No

                     Whether reportable?               Yes / No




                                     5 of 5