Formally proving an authorization letter already on record does not amount to filling a lacuna.

The petitioner, complainant in proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, challenged the rejection of its application under Section 311 Cr.P.C./Section 348 BNSS to formally prove and exhibit an authorization letter.

The petitioner had testified as P.W.1 and been cross-examined; the authorization letter had already been taken on record on 22 March 2022, but the respondent objected when the petitioner later sought to prove and exhibit it.

The trial court refused the request on the ground that it would fill a lacuna, and the revisional court affirmed that decision.

The petitioner therefore invoked Section 528 BNSS.

1. Whether permitting the complainant to formally prove and exhibit an authorization letter already on the trial court record would amount to filling a lacuna in its case

2. Whether the trial and revisional court orders refusing that permission should be set aside

Section 311 Cr.P.C./Section 348 BNSS enables the court to receive relevant and necessary evidence to ensure a just decision.

The Court held that formally proving and exhibiting a document already on the judicial record does not, by itself, amount to filling a lacuna, particularly where it does not introduce a new case or prejudice the defence, which retains the opportunity to cross-examine.

The petitioner relied on M/s Amprolisa Construction and Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v. Gupta Hardware Private Limited and Anr., but the judgment does not identify that decision as a basis for the Court’s ruling.

The authorization letter had already been accepted onto the record, so the proposed step was to prove and exhibit an existing document, not to introduce new evidence establishing a different case.

The Court considered that the defence could still cross-examine on the document and found no basis to treat the requested proof as an impermissible attempt to fill a lacuna.

It also held that procedural technicalities should not override substantive justice in proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

It set aside the revisional court’s order dated 30 April 2026 and the trial court’s order dated 23 September 2025, and directed the trial court to permit the petitioner/complainant to formally prove and exhibit the authorization letter, subject to appropriate costs, before proceeding with the trial in accordance with law.