IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Sudhir Kumar Jain, J.
Harkesh Chadha - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Crl.M.C. 4803 of 2019 & Crl.M.A. 9360 of 2022
Decided On : 15-07-2022
Additional Evidence - Negotiable Instruments Act - 138 - 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was convicted under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 for dishonoring a cheque. The petitioner filed an application under Section 391 of the Code for placing additional evidence on record, which was dismissed by the appellate court.
Finding of the Court:
The appellate court dismissed the application under section 391 of the Code, stating that the additional evidence was not necessary for just adjudication of the appeal and was moved at a belated stage to delay the proceedings.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellate court erred in dismissing the application under section 391 of the Code for placing additional evidence on record.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the power under Section 391 of the Code must be exercised sparingly and only in suitable cases where it serves the interests of justice. The court also noted that the application was filed at a belated stage and was an attempt to delay the proceedings.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, upholding the decision of the appellate court to reject the application under section 391 of the Code.
JUDGMENT
1. This judgment shall decide present petition under section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") for setting aside the order dated 02.07.2019 (hereinafter referred to as "the impugned order") passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-05, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the appellate court") in Criminal Appeal bearing no 103/2018 titled as Harkesh Chadha Vs. State & another whereby an application under section 391 of the Code filed by the appellant was dismissed.
2. The factual background necessary to mention for disposal of present petition is that the respondent no 2/complainant has filed a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 titled as Sanjay Dewan Vs. Harkesh Chadha bearing CC no 969/2016 on allegations that the petitioner hired services of the respondent No. 2 to provide food catering on 14.05.2006 on occasion of birthday of the son of the petitioner and the respondent no 2 raised a bill amounting to Rs.1,07,500/-. The petitioner issued a cheque bearing no 781861 dated 28.07.2006 amounting to Rs.1,00,000/- drawn on Punjab and Sind Bank, Rajouri Garden to discharge said liability and said cheque was got dishonoured due to "closure of account" on presentation for encashment and the petitioner did not pay cheque amount despite notice dated 07.11.2006.
3. The petitioner vide judgment dated 12.03.2018 passed by the court of MM-01 (NI Act), West, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the trial court") was held guilty for committing the offence punishable u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1888 and was accordingly convicted. The petitioner vide order on sentence dated 20.03.2018 was sentenced till the rising of the court and to pay double amount of the cheque. The petitioner being aggrieved filed appeal bearing Criminal Appeal No 103/2018 titled as Harkesh Chadha Vs. State & another which is pending adjudication before the appellate court.
4. The petitioner during the pendency of the said appeal, filed an application under Section 391 of the Code for placing on record there documents as additional evidence which were i) Birth Certificate and the School Identity Card of the son of the petitioner, namely Mohak Chadha, ii) Documents pertaining to catering business of the petitioner and iii) Records pertaining to existence of a chit fund committee by pleading that these crucial documents were left out as evidence inadvertently.
5. The appellate court vide impugned order dismissed the application under section 391 of the Code. The appellate court regarding documents sought to be placed on record held as under:
1. Appellant has moved the present application under Section 391 of the Cr.P.C for leading additional documentary evidence. The documents sought to be produced as additional evidence are - Birth Certificate of the son of the appellant; a Surety Bond furnished by the Complainant (to the Sales Tax Authorities) wherein Appellant stood as a guarantor for the Complainant, to show complainant had previous knowledge about Appellant's catering business; ITR filed by Appellant for the Assessment Year 2004-2005, and certain documents showing existence of a Chit Fund involving the Appellant and Complainant.
2. Before adverting to the merits of the application, brief factual background would be necessary.
3. Complainant Sanjay Dewan filed a complaint against the appellant-accused under Section 138 of the NI Act after dishonour of a cheque of Rs.1 lac which was purportedly given by the Accused-appellant to the Complainant in discharge of a catering invoice raised by the Complainant. The invoice, statedly, was in respect of a catering event organized by the Appellant to celebrate the birthday of his son. Before the trial court. Appellant-accused denied holding any such birthday function. It was submitted before the learned trial court by the Appellant-accused that the event is said to have been organized on 14.5.2006 wher
AI
The power under Section 391 of the Code must be exercised sparingly and only in suitable cases where it serves the interests of justice.
Computer-generated cheque return memo without bank seal or signatures fails to attract presumption of dishonour; prosecution must prove insufficient funds via proper evidence from relevant bank.
Code of Criminal Procedure gives power to appellate court to take additional evidence, which for reasons to be recorded, it considers necessary and Code gives wide discretion to appellate court to de....
The power to receive additional evidence under Section 391 of the Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases where it is necessary for rendering substantial justice.
The presumption of liability under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable, and the accused must provide evidence to counter it; failure to do so results in conviction.
The proposed additional evidence at the appellate stage must be necessary for the just decision of the case, and the court has the discretion to reject such evidence if it deems it unnecessary.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.