Supervisory interference under Section 311 CrPC was refused because the trial court properly admitted relevant evidence without shown prejudice.

Supervisory interference was unwarranted where the trial court had judiciously allowed an application under Section 311 CrPC to place an undertaking on record. The undertaking contained an express admission of receipt of loan amounts and was therefore relevant to the complaint proceedings. The court held that Section 311 is discretionary and is meant to secure the best available evidence for proper adjudication; once that discretion is properly exercised, the High Court will not substitute its own view merely because the matter is at an advanced stage. No prejudice to the opposite side was shown, and cross-examination remained available. The order was upheld and no interference was called for.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order allowing an application to bring an undertaking on record under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 suffered from illegality or infirmity warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The undertaking sought to be placed on record contained an express admission regarding receipt of loan amounts, making it relevant to the complaint proceedings. The power under Section 311 is discretionary and is to be exercised judiciously to enable the court to bring on record the best available evidence for proper adjudication. Once the trial court has exercised such discretion, supervisory jurisdiction does not permit substitution of a different view merely because the matter is at an advanced stage, particularly when no prejudice to the opposite side is shown and the party retains the right of cross-examination. The court also noted that admissions, once made, need not be separately proved.

Conclusion: The order allowing the application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was upheld and no interference was called for.

Final Conclusion: The petition was not maintainable on merits and the impugned order permitting additional evidence to be placed on record remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Interference under supervisory jurisdiction is unwarranted where the trial court has judiciously exercised discretion to admit relevant material under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, absent demonstrated prejudice.

---