High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRR/2066/2024dismissed

Surjit Singh And Another v. The State Of Punjab And Another

2024-10-22Mrs. Justice Manisha Batra6 pages

!"#"

$%$ !

'( )% *+),-,

)

# $ %%% )

, (.+/% The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner under Sections 438 read with Section 442 of

& '

()(*+

,'-. challenging the order dated 19.09.2024 passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, in criminal appeal No. CRA85 of 2022 titled as 'Surjit Singh and another Vs. The State and another' whereby an application filed by the petitioner for granting them permission to lead additional evidence during the pendency of the petition, had been rejected.

" "

/0'

/12*1()34" ,5$ 6"

- 3*4 ' "0 3443 +

,'0 -.

" !

3 )2 37)51 (

" "&

8 8!

(

! ,6

- ( " "

"" & 8

" "

* 9 " &

( " "

)():()((

" 3*4 '0 '

" !""

" '

(+ " .

" 8

)():()(( '

3 '

(

"& 3*4 '0

& ; " & 3 )2 37)51 7 <" &

" "!

/ "

" = <

# &

0 /

/ "

88 !

& 8 !

" (

(

)>):()(7&

" ? 0 &" "

" & &!

& (

(

"& (

& & !

" (0

& & & "

" "

> 0

" " " "

2 &

//!

8 8 !

& 8 "& "

( @ "& *:3 /

& "

0!""" !

! 6

&6 !

! 6 /

6 &;

-"/ 1

! "

6 "" & !

8 0!

! 6 "" 6 ! "

1 " & ;

-" /

& *:3!

"& - " / ! ""&

" "

& " / 4 0 !

! /

& 6 "&

"& "

! 6 &

"" "" "

In the instant case, the petitioners had been given due opportunity to produce evidence in their defence before the learned trial Court. They did not choose to adduce the same. The petitioner No.1 was held guilty and convicted under Section 138 of NI Act. It is only during the pendency of the appeal that the petitioners moved application under Section 391 of Cr.P.C. for producing certain receipts on record. It has not at all being explained as to how proposed additional evidence in the form of these receipts could not be adduced at the appropriate stage before the learned trial Court. Copies of these receipts have been placed on record and it has been revealed that many of these receipts which are photocopies are not having details about the person/concerned which has issued the same. These receipts pertain to the year 2010 onwards and it has not been explained as to how these receipts

proved that the cheuqe in question was only by way of security cheque and was not issued by the petitioners to discharge their legally enforceable debt. The petitioners failed to produce these receipts at the appropriate stage and have also not given any explanation whatsoever for not producing the same during trial. In a recent pronouncement cited as 'Ajitsingh Chehuji Rathod vs. State of Gujarat and another, 2024 INSC 63', it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that power to record additional evidence should only be exercised when the party making such request was prevented from presenting the evidence in the trial despite due diligence being exercised or that the facts giving rise to such prayer came to light at a later stage during pendency of the appeal and that non recording of such evidence may lead to failure of justice.

However, no such circumstance has been pointed out in this case. As such, in the considered opinion of this Court, learned Appellate Court had rightly dismissed the application moved by the petitioners and committed no material error. No infirmity could be pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioners in the impugned order passed by the Appellate Court so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, finding no merit, the petition is dismissed.

& 3)

, 4 $ !