2018 (8) TMI 1344 - HC - Indian Laws

Validity of additional evidence - further evidence with regard to certain documentary evidence filed therewith - Held that - Prima-facie it is quite evident that the document obtained by the Respondent recently and sought to be relied upon has direct bearing to the present case. In the circumstances this Court is of the view that the additional evidence sought to be produced is necessary and further that not examining the said documents may occasion a failure of justice. It is directed that the records of the present case be remitted to the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, East Sikkim at Gangtok to take the additional evidence relating to the documents filed by the Respondent in I.A. No.13/2018 in Criminal Revision Petition No.08/2015 giving opportunity to the Revisionist to rebut the same as per law - petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Application for taking further evidence under Section 391 of Cr.P.C. - Proof of debt or liability under Section 138 of N.I. Act, 1881 - Reliance on new documentary evidence - Necessity of additional evidence for justice.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an application filed by the Respondent seeking to lead further evidence under Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in a case involving the Revisionist. The Trial Court had previously found the Revisionist guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, based on the evidence presented by the complainant. Subsequently, the Sessions Judge affirmed the Trial Court's decision. Dissatisfied with the appellate judgment, the Revisionist filed the present Revision Petition before the High Court.

The key issue in the case revolves around Section 138 of the N.I. Act, 1881, which necessitates the complainant to establish the existence of a debt or other liability. The Respondent sought to introduce new documentary evidence, including a Special Power of Attorney and a sale deed, to support their case. These documents were crucial as they directly related to the disputed lands and transactions under scrutiny. The Respondent argued that these documents were recently obtained and were essential for proving the case effectively.

Upon examination, the High Court found that the newly obtained documents had a direct bearing on the case and were crucial for ensuring justice. Consequently, the Court directed the records to be remitted to the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, East Sikkim, for the purpose of taking additional evidence related to the new documents. The Revisionist was granted the opportunity to rebut this evidence as per legal procedures. The Court emphasized the importance of expeditiously completing the process of taking additional evidence to facilitate a prompt examination of the merits of the Revision Petition.

In conclusion, the High Court acknowledged the significance of the new documentary evidence in substantiating the case under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, 1881. By allowing the introduction of additional evidence, the Court aimed to uphold the principles of justice and ensure a comprehensive examination of the matter.