Kailashpati Polyplast vs Raghav Industries

The dispute between Kailashpati Polyplast Pvt. Ltd. and Raghav Industries arose out of dishonoured cheques issued by the Respondent, which led to multiple complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The matter escalated due to repeated procedural applications filed during trial, with the controversy centering on the admissibility of electronic evidence and the filing of a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act.

The Petitioner filed five complaints against the Respondent, alleging dishonour of cheques worth five lakh rupees each. The Respondent was summoned, charges were framed, and evidence was led by both sides. During the proceedings, the Petitioner attempted to rely upon a Tracking Report to prove service of a legal notice. However, contradictions emerged when the Respondent made conflicting statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and in his testimony as a defence witness. This prompted the Petitioner to move repeated applications under Section 311 Cr.P.C. (now Section 348 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) for bringing additional evidence on record.

The first application sought permission to place invoices and delivery receipts, but was dismissed. The second application, seeking examination of a postal authority to prove service of notice, was allowed, though the witness ultimately confirmed that the relevant record had been weeded out. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed a third application to introduce a certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act, supporting the Tracking Report already on record. The Trial Court dismissed this application on 21 July 2025, noting that it was filed after final arguments and appeared to be an attempt to fill evidentiary gaps.

Aggrieved, the Petitioner challenged the dismissal before the High Court, relying on precedents such as Ram Kishan vs. Emaar MGF Construction Pvt. Ltd. and Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, where it was held that a Section 65B certificate can be produced at any stage before the conclusion of trial. The Petitioner argued that the omission was inadvertent and that justice required allowing the certificate on record. The Respondent, however, maintained that the application was belated and intended only to cover deficiencies highlighted during final arguments, stressing that the Petitioner had ample opportunities earlier in the trial.

The Court carefully considered the legal position that procedures are meant to aid justice and that Section 311 Cr.P.C. grants wide discretion to summon or recall witnesses. However, it also emphasized that such discretion cannot be used to unfairly disadvantage the opposite party. In this case, the Court observed that the Petitioner had consciously chosen not to rely on additional witnesses or certificates earlier, instead depending on the Respondent’s partial admissions regarding service of notice. Only when objections were raised during final arguments did the Petitioner move the third application. The Court held that this amounted to an attempt to cure lacunae in evidence rather than a genuine procedural necessity.

Relying on settled principles that procedural law must not be misused, the Court concluded that the third application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. lacked merit. It dismissed the petitions, observing that although courts generally lean towards permitting additional evidence in the interest of justice, each case must be judged on its own facts. Here, the timing and circumstances clearly indicated that the Petitioner’s request was belated and unjustified.

Accordingly, the Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions filed by Kailashpati Polyplast Pvt. Ltd. were dismissed, and all pending applications were disposed of.