Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral) : The epitome of facts and material, which needs necessary mention for deciding the core controversy involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record is that the complainant -- respondent M/s. Kuber Spintex (P) Ltd. (for brevity ‘the complainant’) filed a complaint against the petitioner - accused M/s. Vinay Textiles through its proprietor, under Section 138-A of The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the N.I. Act). 2. During the course of the trial of the complaint case, the complainant moved an application (Annexure P-1) for additional evidence to produce and prove the bills, which were slated to have not been placed and proved when the complainant produced its other evidence. The production of bills/additional evidence was claimed to be essential for the just decision of the main case. That being the position, the complainant prayed that it be permitted to produce the bills in order to prove the legal liability of the accused - petitioner by way of additional evidence under Section 311 Cr.P.C. 3. The prayer of the complainant was refuted and the petitioner -accused filed the reply (Annexure P-2) in this regard. 4. Sequelly, the trial Magistrate allowed the application for additional evidence (Annexure P-1), subject to costs of Rs.500/- by means of impugned order dated 22.9.2010 (Annexure P-3). 5. The petitioner did not feel satisfied and preferred the instant petition challenging the impugned order (Annexure P-3), invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable assistance and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition. 7. As is evident from the record that the trial Court has only permitted the production of documentary evidence (bills in question) to the complainant by way of additional evidence. The celebrated argument of learned counsel for the petitioner -- accused, that permission to lead additional evidence cannot be granted to the complainant at this belated stage, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. Section 311 Cr.P.C. postulates that the Court at any stage of enquiry, trial or other proceedings can permit the party to produce additional evidence if it appears to it to be essential for a just decision of the case. Section 311 Cr.P.C. postulates that the Court at any stage of enquiry, trial or other proceedings can permit the party to produce additional evidence if it appears to it to be essential for a just decision of the case. Since inter-alia the question of legal liability of the accused would be the moot point to be decided by the trial Court, so to my mind, the production of indicated bills is essential todecide the real controversy between the parties. 8. Moreover, the trial Court has examined the matter in the right perspective, recorded cogent grounds and allowed the production of additional evidence. Such order containing cogent and valid grounds cannot legally be set aside, in exercise of limited jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. unless and until the same is perverse and without jurisdiction. Since no such illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner, so the impugned order deserves to be and is hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 9. In the light of the aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial of the main complaint case, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant petition is hereby dismissed as such.