Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2023 (6) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (6) TMI 893 - HC - Indian LawsDishonour of Cheque - discharge of legal liability - requirement of additional evidence for adjudication of the case before the Appellate Court - Section 391 Cr.P.C. - HELD THAT - It is apparent that the petitioner had been prosecuted by the respondent-company in a complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. After the trial, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the trial Court for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for a period of one year of rigorous imprisonment with a compensation of Rs.23 lacs to the complainant - It is apparent from the perusal of the record that the complainant is SEBI registered company and the petitioner was a client of the same. Both of them entered into an agreement exhibited as Ex.C-2. As apparent from the arguments raised, the crux of the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that on his asking the complainant had not produced the complete record pertaining to sell and buying of holdings. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was given numerous opportunities to lead his evidence. He proved the documents as Ex.DX to DZ. Counsel for the petitioner has laid emphasis on the deposition of the CW-2 Ajit Baluni. The contentions regarding charge of commission/ brokerage have been admitted by the witnesses produced by the complainant. The record which was produced by the complainant had also been put to the petitioner and he had cross-examined the complainant witness regarding the same. Thus, this is an admitted fact that record which was not produced as contended by learned counsel for the petitioner, was very much in the knowledge of the petitioner since beginning. But despite having availed numerous opportunities, he did not make any endeavour to bring the same on record, if it was so essential for just decision of the case. Even after filing of this appeal, the present application has been filed at a belated stage. There is no gainsaying that the Appellate Court had the jurisdiction to invoke its power under Section 391 Cr.P.C. but the same cannot be invoked in a cavalier manner. There is no denial to the fact that statutory power under Section 391 Cr.P.C. can be invoked by the Court at any stage if the circumstances prove that production of the evidence prayed for, is necessary for the just decision of the case and accepting the same would meet the ends of justice. However, in the present case, the petitioner has failed to make out a case that the additional evidence prayed for is necessary for decision of the case and thus, the appeal being without any merit, has been rightly dismissed by the appellate Court. Petition dismissed.
Issues involved:
The petitioner sought to set aside an order dismissing their application under Section 391 Cr.P.C. by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh in a Criminal Appeal. Details of the Judgment: Issue 1: Application under Section 391 Cr.P.C. for additional evidence The petitioner contended that the trial Court failed to appreciate the scope of Section 391 Cr.P.C. The petitioner argued that the respondent charged commission/brokerage but did not produce complete records. The petitioner sought to adduce further evidence by calling for the record/account of shareholding. The petitioner emphasized the necessity of these records for the case. The Appellate Court declined the application, leading to the present petition. Issue 2: Jurisdiction under Section 391 Cr.P.C. The Court noted that the petitioner was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and filed an appeal. The petitioner then applied for additional evidence under Section 391 Cr.P.C. The Court observed that the complainant was a SEBI registered company and the petitioner was a client. The petitioner was given opportunities to present evidence but failed to produce essential records. The Court highlighted the significance of the deposition of a witness in the case. Conclusion: The Court cited legal precedents emphasizing caution in exercising powers under Section 391 Cr.P.C. It was noted that the Appellate Court has the authority to admit additional evidence if necessary for a just decision. However, in this case, the petitioner failed to demonstrate the essentiality of the additional evidence requested. The Court found the appeal without merit and upheld the decision of the Appellate Court, dismissing the present petition.
|