RAVINDRA KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                 CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1061 of 2026

Ravindra Kumar
                                                              .....Revisionist(s)
                                    Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                                   .....Opposite
                                                                         Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s)                 :   Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)              :   G.A.

Court No. - 87
                      HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A. for the
State.

2. Under challenge is the judgment and order dated 07.01.2026 passed by the
Presiding Officer, Special Court, N.I. Act, Agra, in Complaint Case No.
10207 of 2021 (Shahadat Ali vs. Ravindra Kumar), under Section 138 of the
N.I. Act, Police Station Hari Parvat, District Agra, whereby the learned
Presiding Officer has illegally and wrongly rejected the application filed by
the revisionist under Section 311 Cr.P.C.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that opposite party no. 2, in
collusion with his companion Vinod Kumar, misused two cheques bearing
Nos. 420924 and 420925 belonging to the revisionist. The said cheques were
allegedly handed over by the revisionist to opposite party no. 2 as security in
connection with certain construction work. It is contended that there was no
legally enforceable debts or liability, as contemplated under Section 138 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act, in respect of the cheques in question.

4. In order to clarify the aforesaid facts, the revisionist filed an application
under Section 311 Cr.P.C., along with an affidavit dated 13.01.2026, before
the trial court, seeking permission to bring on record the power of attorney
dated 27.10.2020 and the notice dated 06.09.2021 sent by the revisionist to
opposite party no. 2. The said documents were annexed to the application
dated 13.01.2026 and have also been annexed with the present affidavit as
Annexure Nos. 2 and 6.

5. It is further submitted that the trial has not yet concluded; therefore, an
opportunity to lead evidence ought to be afforded to the revisionist. The
application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., it is urged, deserves to be allowed,
and the revisionist should be granted an opportunity to place the aforesaid
documents, namely, the power of attorney dated 27.10.2020 and the notice
dated 06.09.2021, on record.
                                                                                              CRLR No. 1061 of 2026
                                                                    2

                                    6. Learned counsel for the revisionist has placed reliance upon the judgment
                                    of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Natasha Singh vs. CBI (State), reported
                                    in 2013 (4) SCC (Cri) 828, in support of his submissions. It is well settled
                                    that a fair trial must be ensured and that no prejudice should be caused to the
                                    complainant.

                                    7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, and in the interest of
                                    justice, fair trial, and proper adjudication of the case on merits, the
                                    revisionist deserves to be granted an opportunity to submit the aforesaid
                                    documents. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 07.01.2026 is hereby set
                                    aside. The revisionist is permitted to file the said documents before the trial
                                    court within ten days from today.

                                    8. If the revisionist files the said documents within ten days from today, the
                                    same shall be accepted by the learned trial court. Thereafter, an opportunity
                                    of rebuttal shall be afforded to the accused in accordance with law.

                                    9. In case of default or if any adjournment is sought by the revisionist, this
                                    order shall stand vacated automatically.

                                    10. With these observations, the present criminal revision is disposed of.

                                    11. A copy of this order shall be sent to the learned District and Sessions
                                    Judge, Ballia, by e-mail for compliance forthwith.
                                    February 26, 2026
                                    M. Tarik
                                                                                               (Abdul Shahid,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
MOHD TARIK
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad