IMPORTANT POINT
Production of additional evidence – Appellate court ought not to have assumed things and drawn adverse inference as against documents that are proposed to be received in evidence.

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-appellant-accused seeking to quash the order dated 25.07.2025 passed in Crl. M.P. No.22 of 2023 in Crl. A. No.859 of 2017 by the III Additional District Judge, L.B. Nagar, R.R. District, filed under Section 391 Cr. P.C., wherein the said petition was dismissed.

2. Heard Mr. V. Venkata Subramanyam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A Ravinder Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri Ch. Venkateshwara Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the de facto complainant has filed a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short ‘NI Act’) before the trial court against the petitioner herein and the trial court has passed judgment of conviction against the petitioner without going into the material placed on record and that aggrieved by the said judgment, an appeal is filed before the appellate Court and the said appeal is pending vide Crl.A. No.859 of 2017 on the file of III Additional District Judge. In the said appeal, the petitioner has preferred an application under Section 391 Cr. P.C., praying the court to receive certain additional evidence. The said application was dismissed. It is her further case that she along with other partners has verified the account books of their firm for the years from 2012 to 2016 and then she noticed the records and cheque books which were maintained by her husband with his own hand-writing and on verification, she could notice the cheque book containing the subject cheques was missing and also after verification of the statement of account, the petitioner came to know that the respondent No.1 used two cheques and except the said two cheques no other cheque in the cheque book was utilized and that the same was in his custody. Thus, she filed the application under Section 391 Cr. P.C., before the appellate court to receive the said documents as additional evidence, but the same was dismissed by the appellate court. Aggrieved by the said dismissal order, the present criminal petition is filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order passed by the appellate court is without any merit and that the petitioner wants to put forth these documents as additional evidence, for which the appellate court has to allow the petition under Section 391 Cr. P.C., but the same was dismissed by the appellate court. He further submitted that documents which the petitioner wants to file as additional evidence are very crucial documents and that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent No.1 if they are received as additional evidence. Hence, he prayed this Court to set aside the orders passed by the appellate court and allow the petitioner to adduce the additional evidence.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has submitted that the CC pertains to the year 2016 and when the judgment of conviction was rendered by the trial court in the year 2017 against the petitioner, she has preferred an appeal in 2017 and the matter is still kept pending due to the dilatory tactics played by the petitioner herein. He further submitted that the petitioner is due to pay legally enforceable debt to the respondent No.1 herein, but she is evading the same, just by playing dilatory tactics and the present application is filed in 2025 and she wants to further drag on the matter. He further submitted that there is no substance in the contention of the petitioner and that all the documents are already on record and the prayer made in the application filed under Section 391 Cr. P.C., is not tenable because the said section envisages that the petition can be filed only in certain circumstances which are not made out by the petitioner herein. He, therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. Perused the record.

7. The petitioner herein is the appellant in Crl. A. No.859 of 2017. She intends to file certain documents as additional evidence and the application under Section 3