MEHINDER SINGH SULIAR, J. - (1.) THE epitome of facts and material, which needs necessary mention for deciding the core controversy involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record is that the complainant -respondent M/s. Kuber Spintex (P) Ltd. (for brevity 'the complainant') filed a complaint against the petitioner - accused M/s. Vinay Textiles through its proprietor, under Section 138-A of The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the N.I. Act).
(2.) DURING the course of the trial of the complaint case, the complainant moved an application (Annexure P-l) for additional evidence to produce and prove the bills, which were slated to have not been placed and proved when the complainant produced its other evidence. The production of bills/additional evidence was claimed to be essential for the just decision of the main case. That being the position, the complainant prayed that it be permitted to produce the bills in order to prove the legal liability of the accused - petitioner by way of additional evidence under Section 311 Cr.P.C. The prayer of the complainant was refuted and the petitioner -accused filed the reply (Annexure P-2) in this regard.
(3.) SEQUELLY , the trial Magistrate allowed the application for additional evidence (Annexure P-l), subject to costs of Rs.500/- by means of impugned order dated 2;