Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Parth Prateem Sahu, J.
Ramesh Kumar Dadsena S/o Babulal Dadsena - Appellant
Vs.
Vidyasagar Ratre S/o Shri Ramratan Ratre - Respondent
CRR No. 407 of 2024
Decided On : 26-04-2024
ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE - Criminal Procedure Code - Section 391 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of Section 391 of the Criminal Procedure Code, emphasizing the conditions for seeking permission to lead additional evidence and the necessity for due diligence in presenting such evidence. The court referred to relevant judgments to highlight the requirement that the party seeking to present additional evidence must have been prevented from doing so during the trial or that the facts giving rise to the request came to light at a later stage during the appeal. The court also emphasized that the power to record additional evidence should be exercised with caution and circumspection to meet the ends of justice.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant filed a petition invoking revisional jurisdiction under Section 397/401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, seeking to set aside the order rejecting the application filed under Section 391 Cr.P.C. The application sought permission to produce additional evidence related to the repayment of a loan involved in a cheque dishonor case.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the provisions of Section 391 CrPC and the conditions for seeking permission to adduce additional evidence. It concluded that the applicant failed to demonstrate due diligence in presenting the evidence and that the application appeared to be an effort to prolong the proceedings. Consequently, the court upheld the order rejecting the application.
Issues: The key issue revolved around the applicant's plea for permission to adduce additional evidence under Section 391 CrPC, focusing on the necessity for due diligence and the timing of presenting the evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 391 CrPC and the established legal principles regarding the conditions for seeking permission to lead additional evidence. It emphasized the requirement for due diligence and the need for the facts giving rise to the request to have come to light at a later stage during the appeal.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed, upholding the order rejecting the application for permission to produce additional evidence under Section 391 CrPC.
Based on the provided legal document, the key legal principles and findings are as follows:
The power to record additional evidence under Section 391 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) must be exercised with caution and circumspection. The court emphasized that this power should only be used when the party seeking to adduce additional evidence demonstrates due diligence and shows that the evidence was not available earlier or that the relevant facts came to light at a later stage during the appeal (!) (!) .
The court clarified that the conditions for granting permission to lead additional evidence include the requirement that the evidence was not within the party’s knowledge at the appropriate time, despite due diligence, or that it resulted from a subsequent event. Merely omitting to produce evidence earlier does not justify its admission at the appellate stage unless the party can establish that they were prevented from presenting the evidence earlier (!) (!) (!) .
The court stressed that the power to record additional evidence is an exception to the general rule that appeals are decided based on the evidence before the trial court. It must be exercised carefully to avoid unnecessary prolongation of proceedings or injustice (!) (!) .
In the case at hand, the applicant failed to demonstrate due diligence or that the facts giving rise to the request for additional evidence emerged only at a later stage. The evidence sought to be introduced was within the applicant’s knowledge during the trial, but he did not produce it then, nor did he offer a sufficient explanation for the delay (!) (!) (!) .
The court found that the applicant's plea that the evidence was unavailable earlier was unsubstantiated, and the attempt to introduce such evidence at the appellate stage appeared to be an effort to prolong the proceedings rather than serve the ends of justice (!) .
Consequently, the court upheld the rejection of the application for additional evidence, affirmed the order passed by the appellate court, and dismissed the revision petition, reinforcing the principle that the exercise of authority under Section 391 CrPC must be judicious and based on established criteria (!) (!) .
In summary, the judgment underscores that the discretion to admit additional evidence under Section 391 CrPC is limited and must be exercised only when the applicant demonstrates that they could not have produced the evidence earlier despite due diligence, and that the facts justifying the evidence arose later during the appeal.
ORDER ON BOARD :
1. This petition has been filed by applicant invoking revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 397/401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (henceforth ‘CrPC’) for setting aside of the order dated 13.3.2024 (Annexure A-1) passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Saraipali, District Mahasamund (CG) in Criminal Complaint Case No.345/2019 whereby the application filed by applicant under Section 391 Cr.P.C. has been rejected.
2. Briefly stated facts of case are that complainant/non-applicant had filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘the Act of 1881’) alleging dishonour of cheque issued by applicant in favour of non-applicant. Said complaint came to be registered as Criminal Complaint Case No.345/2019 and after due trial, it was ensued in judgment dated 27.2.2013 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Basna convicting and sentencing applicant for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act of 1881. Applicant preferred an appeal before the appellate Court challenging said judgment of conviction and order of sentence. During pendency of said appeal, applicant preferred an application under Section 391 CrPC pleading that on the basis of complaint made by non- applicant, police of police station Basna inquired into the matter and recorded statement of witnesses in which they have stated about return of entire amount to complainant, copies of those statements have been obtained by applicant under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and also brought the same to the notice of his counsel but for some unknown reasons, said documents could not be produced before trial Court. Statements of said witnesses are material in the present case and therefore, permission was sought to produce said documents as additional evidence. Non-applicant filed reply to said application denying the averments made therein. Appellate Court, after hearing the parties in the matter, rejected said application vide impugned order holding that applicant failed to offer any cogent explanation for not submitting said documents at an early stage of trial despite having sufficient opportunity.
3. Learned counsel for applicant submits that learned appellate Court committed error in rejecting application filed by applicant under Section 391 CrPC. He submits that Section 391 of CrPC clearly envisages that appellate Court, if thinks, additional evidence is necessary, shall record the same and necessary document may be taken on record, but the appellate Court without going into the relevancy of the documents rejected the application. He submits that the documents sought to be produced as additional evidence would show that the amount which is alleged to be payable to the complainant, has already been paid by applicant and there was no amount due on the date of filing of application under Section 138 of the Act of 1881. Since the complainant denied having received any amount, the documents which were sought to be brought on record as additional evidence were necessary for disposal of appeal. He next contended that no prejudice is going to be caused to the respondent if the said documents are allowed to be produced as additional evidence, yet the appellate Court has dismissed the application.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record.
5. Perusal of the record reflects that during pendency of appeal against conviction, an application under Section 391 CrPC was filed by applicant seeking permission to adduce additional evidence. In Para-6 of said application, it was contended by applicant that the counsel appearing on behalf of applicant was informed about the statements of witnesses recorded during police inquiry and other documents, but the same could not be exhibited during trial for unknown reasons.
6. Section 391 of CrPC reads thus;-
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the power to record additional evidence under Section 391 CrPC should be exercised with caution and circumspection, and the party seeking t....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the power to record additional evidence under Section 391 Cr.P.C. should only be exercised when the party making such request was prevented fr....
The court reaffirmed that additional evidence under Section 391 of the Cr.P.C. can only be admitted if it was unavailable during trial despite due diligence, ensuring a fair adjudication process.
The admission of additional evidence under Section 391 Cr.P.C. is justified only in exceptional circumstances where not doing so may lead to a miscarriage of justice.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
