- (1.) This petition challenges order dated 30.11.2007 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Samana vide which application under Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 filed by the complainant-PUNSUP has been dismissed on the ground that the clerk of the petitioner/Department alongwith record was present on each and every date of hearing. The application that seeks calling of a witness in additional evidence does not mention the name of the Clerk, and the record to be summoned in the application, and the application has been moved only to harass the accused.
(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the respondents contends that the complainant has been grossly negligent. Allegedly the cheques issued by the accused have been dishonoured on account of 'insufficient funds'. The witness cited in the list of witnesses has already been examined and therefore, no occasion arises to allow the application under Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
(3.) I have considered the contention of the learned counsel. The case is still at evidence stage. The complainant wants to summon clerk of PUNSUP alongwith record so as to prove that paddy was entrusted with the accused for shelling for which negotiable instruments were issued by the accused. Surely, it cannot be denied that the evidence is relevant for consideration of the liability of the accused that was required to be discharged by way of cheques that have been issued. If the additional evidence is not allowed to be brought, substantial injustice would be caused and the Court would not be apprised of the true and complete facts, sufficient to adjudicate.;