Section 311 CrPC evidence limited to necessity in cheque dishonour proceedings; refusal to lead additional evidence upheld.

In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the HC upheld refusal to allow the accused to adduce additional evidence under Section 311 CrPC because such power is exercised only when evidence is necessary to meet the ends of justice. The loan transaction, issuance of the cheques, and the accused's signatures were admitted, and the proposed evidence on alleged fraud, mortgage arrangements, and loan rescheduling was not found necessary in summary proceedings. Repeated applications were treated as indicative of delay, and the order refusing additional evidence was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order refusing to permit the accused to adduce additional evidence under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act should be set aside.

Analysis: The petition arose from a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act based on cheques admittedly issued and signed by the accused towards repayment of a loan. The requested additional evidence was sought to raise allegations of fraud, mortgage of properties and a proposed loan rescheduling arrangement. The governing principle for exercising power under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is that evidence may be permitted only when it is necessary to meet the ends of justice. On the facts, the Court found no necessity for further evidence because the loan transaction, issuance of cheques and signatures on the cheques were not in dispute, and the proceedings were summary in nature. The Court also found the repeated applications to be indicative of an attempt to delay the matter.

Conclusion: The refusal to allow additional evidence was upheld and the petition was dismissed.

---