The provision under section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is meant for taking oral evidence only and does not permit the production of new documents.

P.N. Deshmukh, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties.

2. This petition challenges impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Criminal Appeal No. 08 of 2009 on dated 01st September, 2015, thereby rejecting application filed by the petitioners under section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying for directions to the trial Court to record additional evidence.

3. To understand controversy involved in the present petition, following facts in brief are necessary to be stated. The petitioners are original accused in Criminal Complaint Case No. 4800 of 2005 initiated by respondent under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. By judgment of the learned trial Court, the petitioners came to be convicted and are sentenced to suffer SI for one month and are directed to pay compensation of rupees eight lakhs, jointly and severally to respondent within one month from the date of order and in default of payment of compensation, are awarded further SI for one month. The petitioners assailed this judgment before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, by filing Criminal Appeal No. 08 of 2009 and during the course of hearing of this appeal, filed an application seeking permission for leading additional evidence or to issue directions to trial Court to allow the petitioners to bring on record additional evidence which came to be rejected under impugned order, as aforesaid.

4. Shri G.L. Bajaj, learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the disputed cheque was drawn on a bank account which was in the name of petitioner No. 1 which is a partnership firm which came to be dissolved with effect from 31st March, 2004 by its partners by executing dissolution deed on that date. It is, therefore, submitted that partnership firm having dissolved, as aforesaid, in view of provisions of section 63 of Indian Partnership Act, 1932 and Rule 4 of Maharashtra Partnership Rules, 1989, the petitioners were under obligation to intimate such dissolution by submitting Form to the Registrar of Firms which was accordingly submitted on 07.05.2004. It is, therefore, the case of petitioners that as the petitioners were registered partnership firm and as was dissolved with effect from 31st March, 2004 of which intimation of dissolution was submitted as aforesaid on 07.05.2004, the disputed cheque is of no legal consequences and has, therefore, submitted that such cheque cannot attract penal provisions of section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

5. It is further submitted that the petitioners are not having any legal knowledge and cannot be said to be fully literate persons though they are carrying out business and as such were totally relying upon the Counsel appointed by them to defend their case before the trial Court but, unfortunately he failed to bring on record said fact of dissolution of firm and of presentation of cheque by respondent after such dissolution and also after presentation of Form by the petitioners. It is thus contended that even if above stated facts were within the knowledge of petitioners and were brought to the notice their lawyer pending trial, he has failed to bring this material evidence on record by not appreciating its importance and consequences of non production of such evidence. It is thus submitted that, application under section 391 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 filed for allowing additional evidence on record needs to be allowed by setting aside impugned order by which it came to be rejected.

6. Learned Counsel for respondent, (original complainant) has contended that as a matter of fact, the petitioners admittedly had a business relations with respondent for purchase of various goods during the period from 25.12.2003 to 24.04.2004 which fact can be established from the bill dated 24.04.2004 valued for Rs. 1,60,290/- on record. It is further submitted that ev