Prashant Shah S/o Shri P. B. Shah, New Delhi vs Hotel Clark Amer (Unit U. P. Hotels Limited), Jaipur

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2019 Supreme(Raj) 546

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J.
Prashant Shah S/o Shri P.B. Shah, New Delhi – Petitioner
Versus
M/s Hotel Clark Amer (Unit U.P. Hotels Limited), Jaipur and Ors. – Respondents
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2267 of 2019
Decided On : 15-04-2019

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Manish Kumawat
For the Respondent: Mr. Atul Sharma, Public Prosecutor

Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Code,1973 – Section 311,391 – Negotiable Instruments Act,1881 – Section 138 – Petitioner attempt during course of trial to prove those documents by filing application under Section 311 Cr.P.C said application dismissed by trial Court – Held, Court upheld order passed by trial Court holding that documents not necessary for adjudication of case under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act – Documents which petitioner failed to prove and exhibit during course of trial not made subject matter of application under Section 391 Cr.P.C. which is only for leading additional evidence during pendency of appeal – Relevancy of documents rejected during course of trial therefore, same not made relevant in appeal – Further, Section 391 Cr.P.C. requires appellant should remain diligent during course of trial. Section 391 Cr.P.C cannot invoked if plea raised during course of trial has been rejected upto High Court – Petition Dismissed (Para 2,5, 6)
Facts of the case:
Petitioner contends that documents were available with complainant during course of trial – Accused-petitioner made an attempt during course of trial to prove those documents by filing an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. said application was dismissed by trial Court
Findings of the court:
Court upheld order passed by trial Court holding that documents not necessary for adjudication of case under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act – Documents which petitioner failed to prove and exhibit during course of trial not made subject matter of application under Section 391 Cr.P.C. which is only for leading additional evidence during pendency of appeal – Relevancy of documents rejected during course of trial therefore, same not made relevant in appeal – Further, Section 391 Cr.P.C. requires appellant should remain diligent during course of trial. Section 391 Cr.P.C cannot invoked if plea raised during course of trial rejected upto High Court.
Result: Petition Dismissed

ORDER :

1. Counsel for the petitioner contends that documents were available with the complainant during course of the trial. Accused-petitioner made an attempt during the course of trial to prove those documents by filing an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. Said application was dismissed by the trial Court.

2. Aggrieved against the same, petitioner approached this Court. This Court upheld the order passed by the trial Court holding that documents are not necessary for adjudication of the case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The documents which the petitioner failed to prove and exhibit during course of the trial cannot be made subject matter of application under Section 391 Cr.P.C. which is only for leading additional evidence during pendency of the appeal. Relevancy of documents was rejected during course of the trial, therefore, same cannot be made relevant in appeal. Hence, the Court below has rightly dismissed the application of the petitioner.

3. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon J. Durgeshwar Reddy Vs. State of A.P., 1984-1997 DCR(3) 313, to contend that the Court can always summon the documents as additional evidence to ward off failure of justice. This plea has already been determined upto the High Court during course of the trial. Hence, judgment rendered in J. Durgeshwar Reddy (supra) is distinguishable.

4. Counsel for the petitioner further relied upon Umesh Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2004(3) R.C.C. 1269, to contend that if there is a manifest injustice, the Court can always take additional evidence into consideration. The case of Umesh (supra) pertains to offences under Sections 279 and 304A IPC. In the present case, plea was raised during course of the trial and was rejected upto the High Court during course of the trial. Hence, the judgment relied also cannot be construed in favour of the petitioner.

5. Further, Section 391 Cr.P.C. requires that the appellant should remain diligent during course of the trial. Section 391 Cr.P.C cannot be invoked if a plea raised during course of the trial has been rejected upto the High Court.

6. Consequently, there is no merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document