2018 (4) TMI 1878 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - evidentiary value of additional documents produced - HELD THAT - The Appellate Court is having ample power for receiving the additional evidence subject to the condition that the Court should came to the conclusion that the additional evidence is necessary. With regard to the additional documents now submitted by the respondent, the learned Additional District Judge hold that the particulars of those documents are already mentioned in the reply notice sent by the respondent. Moreover, it was mentioned in the order, as the documents which are enclosed in the petitions are all relates to the year of 1997-1999. Further, it was identified by the learned Additional District Judge that the 11th document enclosed in the petition is a document certified by the competent court after seeing the original. Now, on going through the defense taken by the respondent in the Criminal Appeal is the alleged cheque pertaining to the Criminal Appeal is not handed over to the petitioner by the respondent directly. The said cheque goes to the hands of the petitioner only through one V.Madeswaran. The said defense was already mentioned in the reply notice sent to the revision petitioner - the particulars available with the additional documents are related with the defense taken by the respondent whereby taking the view of the learned Additional District Judge that those documents are necessary for disposing the Criminal Appeal does not warrant any interference. This Court came to the conclusion that the impugned order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Nammakal is only within the legal frame work - Criminal Revisions are dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Additional evidence and documents filed in Criminal Appeal.
2. Validity of additional evidence and documents.
3. Use of xerox copies as evidence.
4. Attempt to fill gaps in the case with additional documents.
5. Interpretation of Section 391 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Analysis:
1. The judgment involved the consideration of additional evidence and documents filed by the respondent in a Criminal Appeal. The respondent sought to introduce additional documents and evidence through petitions under Section 391 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Crl.P.C.). The Appellate Court allowed the petitions, leading to the petitioner filing revisions seeking to set aside the order.

2. The petitioner argued that the additional documents submitted were xerox copies and lacked evidential value. The petitioner contended that if the documents were genuine, they should have been presented during the trial. However, the Appellate Court, without delving into the authenticity of the documents, permitted their submission. The respondent justified the submission of additional documents by stating they were related to the defense already disclosed in the reply notice.

3. The issue of using xerox copies as evidence was raised by the petitioner. The petitioner objected to the acceptance of xerox copies as primary evidence. The respondent countered by stating that objections regarding the nature of evidence should have been raised during the marking of documents. The Court noted that the form of evidence could be challenged at the appropriate stage.

4. The petitioner alleged that the respondent was attempting to fill gaps in the case by introducing additional documents, citing a precedent that disallowed the use of Section 391 of the Crl.P.C. to fill prosecution case gaps. However, the Court found that the additional documents were relevant to the defense already disclosed by the respondent and did not indicate an attempt to fill gaps in the case.

5. The interpretation of Section 391 of the Crl.P.C. was crucial in this judgment. The Court analyzed the provisions of Section 391(1) and (2) and emphasized that the Appellate Court had the authority to admit additional evidence if deemed necessary. The Court concluded that the Appellate Court's decision to allow the additional evidence was within the legal framework, as the documents were found to be relevant to the defense presented by the respondent.

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the Criminal Revisions, upholding the order of the Appellate Court permitting the submission of additional evidence and documents in the Criminal Appeal.