[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manmohan Singh vs Tek Chand Saini on 27 April, 2026
CRM-M-23342-2026 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
146 CRM-M-23342-2026 (O&M)
Date of decision:27.04.2026
Manmohan Singh ... Petitioner
Vs.
Tek Chand Saini ... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present: Mr. Shantanu Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner.
...
Manisha Batra, J. (Oral).
1. In the instant petition filed under Section 528 of the BNS,
petitioner is seeking quashing of order dated 03.04.2026 as passed by the
Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala in criminal appeal
bearing No.CRA-202-2025 titled as 'Manmohan Singh Vs. Tek Chand
Saini', whereby the application filed by the petitioner for granting him
permission to produce by way of additional evidence, Income Tax Returns
(ITRs) of the respondent/complainant for the relevant assessment years, had
been declined.
2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition
are that the respondent - Tek Chand Saini filed a complaint under Section
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the present petitioner,
alleging that he had issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.7 lakhs to discharge his
CRM-M-23342-2026 (O&M) -2-
legally enforceable liability and the said cheque has been dishonoured. The
petitioner faced trial in the abovesaid complaint and had been held guilty
and convicted vide judgment dated 02.06.2025 passed by the learned
jurisdictional Magistrate.
3. During the pendency of the criminal appeal filed by the
petitioner, he moved an application under Section 432 of the BNSS seeking
permission to produce by way of additional evidence ITRs for the relevant
assessment years pertaining to the complainant and also to direct the
respondent/complainant to disclose his PAN number etc. so that the ITRs
could be summoned from the concerned office. The said application had
been dismissed by the learned Appellate Court by passing the impugned
order dated 03.04.2026 and feeling aggrieved of the same, this petition is
filed.
4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the
impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law as the same is based on
conjectures and surmises and is not well reasoned one. The proposed
additional evidence was required for just decision of the appeal as pending
before the learned Appellate Court but this fact has not been taken into
consideration. Moreso, the proposed evidence went to the root of the matter
as the same would have established the financial capacity of the complainant
so as to enable the petitioner to rebut the statutory presumption under
Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act but he has been deprived of
that opportunity. It is, as such, urged that the impugned order is liable to be
set aside, the petition deserves to be accepted and that he deserves to be
extended an opportunity to produce by way of additional evidence, the ITRs
CRM-M-23342-2026 (O&M) -3-
of the complainant to prove his financial capacity. To buttress his argument,
learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the authorities
cited as Raj Kumar Sharma Versus Mukesh Panchal, 2023 NCPHHC
38923, Darshan Kalra Versus Amit Oberoi passed in CRM-A-1880-MA-
2017 and Naval Kishore Vs. Kuldeep Singh Kharbanda passed in CRR-
3381-2016.
5. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned
counsel for the petitioner at considerable length besides going through the
material placed on record.
6. On a perusal of the impugned order, it is revealed that the
petitioner sought permission to produce by way of additional evidence, the
ITRs of the respondent/complainant for the relevant assessment years for the
purpose of showing his financial capacity to advance the alleged amount of
Rs.7.25 lakhs to the petitioner. The learned Appellate Court had observed
that the petitioner had been granted full opportunity to seek production of
the abovesaid ITRs at the stage of trial itself. He had not given any
satisfactory explanation, much less any justification demonstrating due
diligence to show as why such documents were not produced or sought to be
produced during trial. No doubt, under Section 432 of the BNSS, the Court
is empowered to ask for production of additional evidence if such evidence
is required for just decision of the case. However, it is equally well settled
that the power to accord permission to lead additional evidence at the
Appellate stage is to be exercised if it serves the ends of justice and does not
cause prejudice to the opposite party. An evidence which amounts to change
the nature of the case or amounts to re-trial should not allowed. The
CRM-M-23342-2026 (O&M) -4-
respondent/ complainant had produced evidence in support of his case
before the learned trial Court. The petitioner was obviously granted full
opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses of the respondent/complainant
and to produce his own evidence. However, the petitioner did not avail the
opportunity of producing the proposed evidence at that time and has also not
offered any explanation as to why he did not do so. After recording finding
of his conviction, the appellant wants to get the ITRs of the complainant
summoned and to produce the same on record obviously to establish that the
complainant/respondent did not have financial capacity to lend the amount
of money which was given by cheque to the petitioner. The proposed
additional evidence is sought to be produced obviously with an intent to fill
up the lacuna in his case and to cause prejudice to the
respondent/complainant. This Court finds no compelling ground to allow
this petition as the order passed by the learned Appellate Court is well
reasoned and warrants no interference. Accordingly, the petition is
dismissed.
7. Since the main petition has been dismissed, pending
application, if any, is rendered infructuous.
(MANISHA BATRA)
27.04.2026 JUDGE
harjeet
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
