MUHAMMAD AMJAD RAFIQ, J.---Through this appeal under section 417(2- A), Cr.P.C. the appellant/complainant (Haji Bashir Ahmad) has challenged the judgment dated 16.06.201 1 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kasur whereby he allowed the appeal filed by the respondent No.2 (accused) and acquitted him while setting aside his conviction and sentence awarded to him by learned Judicial Magistrate, Kasur vide his judgment dated 02.06.201 1 in case FIR No.421 dated 05.06.2010 registered under section 489-F , P.P.C. at Police Station Raiwind Saddar , Kasur (now Police Station Kot Radha Kishan).
2. The allegation as set out against respondent No.2 in the crime report is that he had issued a cheque amounting to Rs.99,00,000/- in favour of the appellant/complainant which was dishonoured on its presentation before the concerned bank due to lack of funds.
3. Argument heard; record perused.
4. At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellant contends that the learned Judicial Magistrate while passing the judgment dated 02.06.201 1 though has conceded that the complainant has placed original cheque which was shown as Mark-A and convicted responde nt No.1 (accused) on the basis of such cheque but the learned Additional Sessions Judge while deciding the appeal has not considered this aspect that original cheque though was not brought on record through process of law under Qanun-e-Shahadat Order , 1984, he should have remanded the case to the learned Magistrate in order to do the complete justice. Learned counsel for the appellant has rightly pointed out that in the criminal law, justice should be done on the basis of evidence in possession of the parties and no person should be non-suited mere on the basis of technicalities.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has urged that issuance of cheque was not denied by respondent No.2 and this fact is also observed by this court while hearing bail petition of respondent No.2 and such fact was brought on record through the statement of PW-01; He further contends that appeal filed by respondent No.2 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge was decided without hearing the appellant/ complainant and he has been condemned unheard which is against the principles of natural justice.
6. Examination of appeal filed by respondent No.2 on 08.06.201 1 before learne d Additional Sessions - Judge, Kasur , shows that the appellant/ complainant was not impleaded as a party to the said appeal and learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kasur , while exercising his powers as Appellate Court decided the same within eight days of its institution on 16.06.201 1; It shows that he passed the impugned judgment in hasty manner . Appellate Court was under obligation to direct the appellant to implead the complainant as party and then issue notice to him.
Hearing the other side is based upon the principle of natural justice which is embod ied and inherent in every statute sans express provisions. No adverse order can be made detrimental to the party without giving him a notice.
7. No information was found that complainant was given notice of appeal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge; had he been present there he would certainly have filed application for additional evidence because the learned trial court had already accepted his plea for non-production of original cheque.
8. Non-production of original cheque before the learned Judicial Magistrate was probably due to the reason that present appellant/ complainant's suit for specific performance on the basis of said cheque was pending before learned civil court which was instituted on 31.03.2010 well before his statement in the court and decision of case by the learned Judicial Magistrate. Said suit was dismissed on 05.06.2013 and since then a round of litigation is on and now finally the matter has been taken up before Honourable Supreme Court through filing of CPLA. Though the trial court is empowered to call for any documents for the purpose of trial under section 94, Cr.P.C. read with Articles 158 and 161 of Qanun-e-Shahad at Order , 1984 but any document does not include judicial record of a court. On the analogy of Order XIII, Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, there is no provision in Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 for summoning of judicial record by the court; only certified copies can be produced as secondary evidence as ordained in Article 76 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order , 1984.
10. The learned Additional Sessions Judge while deciding the appeal of the accused/respondent No.1 was under obligation to direct the complainant to produce original cheque and must have allowed him to bring on the record the original cheque and to prove the circumstance for non-production thereof as per provisions of Qanun-e- Shahadat Order 1984, such opportunity has not been provided by him.
11. App llant/ complainant earlier filed Crl. Misc. No. 01 of 2020 and now hi filed Criminal Misc. No. 2 of 2021 before this Court seeking permission to place on record original Cheque No.5487750 worth Rs.9,900,000/- dated 26.04.2010 along with dishonor slip, original agreement dated 30.10.2009 and sale receipt dated 11.06.2009 as an additional evidence (original documents are annexed with the application). Both the parties are adamant to adduce additional evidence and have filed applications in this regard. As the learned Additional Session Judge has acquitted respondent No.2 only on the ground that original cheque was not produced; therefore, it would be appropriate to remand the case to learned Additional Session Judge who shall allow the parties to adduce additional evidence and after recording the same shall decide the appeal afresh.
12. For what has been discussed above, the appeal in hand is allowed , impugned judgment dated 16.06.201 1 passed by the learned Additional Sessio ns Judge, Kasur is hereby set aside; the case is remanded back to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kasur; appeal filed by respondent No.1 against his conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kasur vide judgment dated 02.06.201 1 shall be deemed to be pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kasur . Parties are directed to appear before the learned Sessions Judge, Kasur on 24.06.2021, who under section 559 of Cr.P.C. shall decide the successor of court of the then learned Additional Session Judge, Kasur , who had earlier passed impugned judgment dated 16.06.201 1 and shall entrust the case to the said court. The learned Appellate Court shall allow the parties to adduce additional evidence and after recording the same shall decide the appeal afresh as early as possible preferably within three months.
Original Cheque No.5487750 worth Rs.9,900,000/- dated 26.04.2010 along with original dishonor slip, original agreement dated 30.10.2009 and sale receipt dated 11.06.2009 annexed with Criminal Misc. No.02 of 2021 be returned to the appellant/ complainant after retaining its copies in the record, for its production before the learned Appellate Court.
3. All the pending applications are disposed of having gone infructuous.