IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the rejection of the application for additional evidence, affirming that the accused was not denied a fair trial and had opportunities to present his defense.

JUDGMENT :

Nirzar S. Desai, J.

1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 14.08.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.4, City Civil & Sessions Court, Ahmedabad below application Exh.13 in Criminal Appeal No.564 of 2023 by which the learned Sessions Judge has rejected the application Exhibit 13 filed by the petitioner under Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 corresponding to Section 432 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 praying for recording further evidence and/or direct it to be taken by the trial Court.

2. The facts leading to filing of the present petition can be summarized as under :-

2.1 The petitioner came to be arraigned as an accused in an offence registered vide CR. No. I - 187 of 2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 418, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code with Navrangpura Police Station, District – Ahmedabad, inter alia alleging that the complainant, her sister Parul P. Modi and her father Pannalal K. Modi had got registered one Trust on 01.08.2000 bearing Sr. No.E/13116 in the office of the Charity Commissioner, Ahmedabad and the Trust was allotted on lease hold land by the Government for the period of 15 years vide lease deed dated 10.06.2002. On 31.03.2006, the father of the complainant expired and as the accused was known to family of the deceased since a long time and because of a cordial relations, the complainant sought help of the accused who in turn helped them in managing the Trust in the name and style of Environment Research and Development Center, Ahmedabad and in that process the accused opened a Bank Account in the name of the Trust with South Indian Bank and as per the complainant, the accused without authority operated the aforesaid Bank account and effected transactions in the said account and also issued cheques from the said account, which according to the complainant and her sister were not signed by them and thereby, the accused committed the alleged offence.

2.2 The petitioner came to be arrested upon registration of the FIR and the court of learned Magistrate released the petitioner on bail which order was challenged before the Sessions Court which was overturned. The petitioner challenged the said order before this Court but the order passed by the Sessions Court was upheld, against which the petitioner approached Hon’ble the Supreme Court which directed the petitioner to remain present before the City Sessions Court and pray for bail and further directed the Sessions Court to decide the bail within 48 hours of the surrender of the petitioner. The City Sessions Court, thereafter, ordered release of the petitioner on bail.

2.3 The Investigating Officer filed charge-sheet before the Court of learned 23rd Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad, which registered Criminal Case No.14089 of 2019 and issued process against the petitioner. The complainant being aggrieved approached this Court by way of Special Criminal Application and further investigation was ordered through a highranking officer and therefore, Assistant Commissioner of Police carried out further investigation and filed additional charge-sheet. Upon the petitioner pleading not guilty, charge came to be framed and thereafter the prosecution was called upon to adduce evidence. The prosecution examined 39 witnesses whereas 12 witnesses were dropped to which the petitioner had objected. At this stage, it is pertinent to point out that the prosecution did not examine the Investigating Officer who had filed the charge-sheet nor any application is there on record submitted by the prosecution dropping the said Investigating Officer as a witness in the trial. The Court of learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court No.23, Ahmedabad, after completion of the recording of the evidence called upon the prosecution as well as the defence to make final arguments and thereafter vide judgment and order dated 09.10