9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (1) TMI 1794 - SC - Indian LawsMaintainability of application - application filed before the Session Judge in the criminal appeal filed by him against the conviction order - power to take additional evidence - Section 391 Cr.P.C. - whether the Session Judge committed error in not exercising power under Section 391 Cr.P.C. to permit the appellant to lead additional evidence? - HELD THAT - Power to take additional evidence under Section 391 is, thus, with an object to appropriately decide the appeal by the Appellate Court to secure ends of justice. The scope and ambit of Section 391 Cr.P.C. has come up for consideration before this Court in Rajeswar Prasad Misra Vs. State of West Bengal and Another, 1965 (5) TMI 35 - SUPREME COURT . Justice Hidayatullah, speaking for the Bench held that a wide discretion is conferred on the Appellate Courts and the additional evidence may be necessary for a variety of reasons. He held that additional evidence must be necessary not because it would be impossible to pronounce judgment but because there would be failure of justice without it. There are no fetters on the power under Section 391 Cr.P.C. of the Appellate Court. All powers are conferred on the Court to secure ends of justice. The ultimate object of judicial administration is to secure ends of justice. Court exists for rendering justice to the people. Whether present was the case for exercise of the power by the Appellate Court under Section 391 Cr.P.C. to permit adducing the additional evidence at the appellate stage? - HELD THAT - The trust is admittedly the owner of agricultural land in Village Bichaie. The complainant has been in possession of large number of agricultural lands as thekedar of the trust since 1975, according to his own case, which he even mentioned in the First Information Report. The application under Section 391 Cr.P.C. was made in the Appellate Court to accept certified copy of the Trust Deed dated 18.10.1989 and the Resolution No. 112 dated 18.10.1989 and permitting the appellant to prove the said document by leading oral evidence. When the Appellate Court has been given power to lead additional evidence, the observation that it is belated stage was uncalled for. Appellant was convicted on 07.10.2013 and appeal was immediately filed on the next date, i.e. 08.10.2013. It was not even mentioned by the High Court that there is anything on record to indicate that appeal was being heard and at this stage the application under Section 391 Cr.P.C. was filed, calling the application as filed at belated stage itself was unjustified. Further, the observation of the High Court that application was filed with some ulterior malafide motive also does not commend us. The appellant had already been convicted by the trial court, the charge was cheating the complainant with regard to sale of agricultural land of the trust. The second Trust Deed dated 18.10.1989, which was on record and referred to by the trial court and was refused to look into on the ground that it was not proved by the appellant. Filing of the application before the High Court to accept the certified copy of the Trust Deed and the Resolution and permit the appellant to lead evidence can in no manner be said to be malafide motive of the accused, who had been convicted in the appeal, has right to take all the grounds and also lead additional evidence, which in accordance with the Appellate Court is necessary in deciding the appeal. Thus, Appellate Court committed error in not exercising jurisdiction under Section 391 Cr.P.C. in accepting the second Trust Deed dated 18.10.1989 and the Resolution No.112 dated 18.10.1989 and refusing the appellant to lead evidence to prove the documents. Appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the High Court's dismissal of the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 2. Legality of the Session Judge's rejection of the applications under Section 391 Cr.P.C. 3. Examination of the necessity for additional evidence under Section 391 Cr.P.C. 4. Evaluation of the alleged misappropriation and fraud. 5. Consideration of the appellant's right to a fair trial and appeal. Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the High Court's Dismissal of the Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.: The appellant challenged the High Court's dismissal of their application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., which sought to overturn the Session Judge's rejection of applications under Section 391 Cr.P.C. The High Court dismissed the application, citing that the request for additional evidence at a late stage appeared to be with ulterior motives or to delay the appeal indefinitely. The Supreme Court found these reasons unfounded, noting that the application for additional evidence was justified and not intended to delay the appeal. 2. Legality of the Session Judge's Rejection of the Applications under Section 391 Cr.P.C.: The Session Judge rejected the applications under Section 391 Cr.P.C., stating that the case was old, the appellant had sufficient opportunity to produce evidence during the trial, and no sufficient ground was shown for why the documents were not proved earlier. The Supreme Court found this reasoning erroneous, emphasizing that the appellant should have been allowed to present additional evidence to ensure a fair trial and justice. 3. Examination of the Necessity for Additional Evidence under Section 391 Cr.P.C.: The Supreme Court highlighted that Section 391 Cr.P.C. empowers the Appellate Court to take additional evidence if it is necessary for deciding the appeal. The Court referred to previous judgments, stating that additional evidence must be necessary to avoid a failure of justice. The Court concluded that the additional evidence, namely the Trust Deed and Resolution, was crucial for understanding the appellant's conduct and the basis of the sale agreements, and thus, should have been permitted. 4. Evaluation of the Alleged Misappropriation and Fraud: The appellant was convicted under Section 420/34 IPC for cheating related to the sale of trust land. The High Court had noted that there was no dishonest misappropriation of the property, as the entire sum was spent on purchasing stamp papers. The Supreme Court emphasized that proving the Trust Deed and Resolution was vital to determine the legitimacy of the transactions and the appellant's intent, suggesting that the allegations of cheating and fraud might be unfounded without considering these documents. 5. Consideration of the Appellant's Right to a Fair Trial and Appeal: The Supreme Court underscored the importance of ensuring that no innocent person is convicted and that the appellant's right to a fair trial and appeal must be upheld. The Court noted that the appellant, a retired Brigadier with distinguished service, had not received any money from the complainants, and the transactions were conducted based on the Trust Deed and Resolution, which were not properly considered during the trial. The Court directed the Appellate Court to allow the appellant to present additional evidence and complete the process expeditiously. Conclusion: The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the Session Judge and the High Court, allowing the applications under Section 391 Cr.P.C. and directing the Appellate Court to receive additional evidence and decide the appeal expeditiously. The appeal was allowed accordingly.
|
