Section 311 CrPC evidence can be allowed to prove debt in a cheque dishonour case when no prejudice is shown.

The power under Section 311 CrPC to summon additional witnesses or records is to be used where the evidence is essential for a just decision and to prevent failure of justice, while preserving the opposite party's right to rebut. In a Section 138 NI Act complaint concerning proof of legally enforceable debt, the complainant sought to examine the accountant and produce income tax records to support the alleged liability. The High Court noted that the complainant had pleaded regular accounts and that the accused had already been given an opportunity for cross-examination, so no prejudice was shown. The challenge to the order allowing additional evidence was rejected and the petitions were dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitions seeking quashing of the order allowing the complainant's application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were liable to be dismissed.

Analysis: The controversy related to the permissibility of summoning additional witnesses and records to prove the alleged legally enforceable debt in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The governing test under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is whether the evidence sought is essential to the just decision of the case, and the power must be exercised to prevent failure of justice, not to shut out relevant material where the opposite party can be given an opportunity to rebut it. The Court found that the complainant had pleaded maintenance of regular accounts, sought to examine the accountant and income tax records to substantiate the debt and outstanding liability, and that no prejudice would be caused to the accused since cross-examination opportunity had already been granted.

Conclusion: The challenge to the order permitting additional evidence was rejected and the petitions were dismissed.

---