Back
2023 Supreme(Raj) 2094
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Farjand Ali, J.
Banna Lal Bhambhi - Petitioner
Versus
Chandra Kanta Nenawati - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 554 of 2023
Decided On : 22-08-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. N.K. Rastogi.
For the Respondent: Mr. Bharat Shrimali.
Headnote:(A) Negotiable Instruments Act - Section 138 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 391 - Revision petition challenging dismissal of application to submit additional evidence during appeal - Court allowed the revision, directing the court of appeal to admit relevant documents and exercise discretion for a just decision. (Paras 1-6)
(B) Principles of Admission of Evidence - Importance of admitting documents with direct nexus to the case for just decision emphasized by the court, following Supreme Court precedent. (Para 5)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, convicted under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, sought to submit additional evidence during an appeal, which was dismissed by the Sessions Judge on grounds not specified. The documents sought to be added included a receipt and a reply to a notice, both pertinent to the case.
Findings of Court:
Revision petition allowed; court directed the lower court to take the additional documents on record and allowed the petitioner to present more evidence if necessary, ensuring that the proceedings allowed for fair justice to the parties involved.
Issues: The main issue was the appropriateness of admitting additional documentary evidence for a fair hearing in the ongoing appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reinforced that it is essential to admit evidence that has a direct relevance to the case to facilitate justice, as supported by the Supreme Court ruling mentioned.
Result: Revision petition allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge against order on evidence (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. context of the application under section 391 cr.p.c. (Para 2 , 4) |
| 3. importance of document relevance for justice (Para 5) |
| 4. court's directive on evidence admission (Para 6) |
ORDER :
Farjand Ali, J.
The legality correctness and propriety of the order dated 28.03.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities cases), Bhilwara in Criminal Appeal No.26/2020 has been challenged by the accused-appellant before this court whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 391 Cr.P.C. has been dismissed.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondent and gone through the order dated 28.03.2023 as well as the document purportedly sought to be taken on record during the course of appeal.
3. It is not a disputed fact that the petitioner was convicted for committing an offence under section 138 of the N.I. Act and aggrieved by that, he preferred an appeal which is pending before the learned court below.
4. During the course of the appeal, the petitioner moved an application under Section 391 of the Cr.P.C. along with certain documents with the prayer to take the same on record. It was contended that the document was a receipt executed in between the parties and was having a direct nexus with the issue pending before the Court of appeal. Another document is the reply of the notice dated 02.04.2013 given by the petitioner to the respondent in connection with the notice sent to him. Indisputably, both the documents pertain to the transaction involved in the appeal.
5. It is nigh-well settled that whenever it is felt essential for the justified disposal of the case that the evidence, oral or documentary, be called or recalled or additionally adduced for the purpose of just decision of the case, the same can be done since the ultimate object of the court is to impart justice. Only the relevancy of the documents is to be seen along with the admissibility of the same. A critical appreciation or assessment of documents is not required. However, it should have a direct nexus with the fact in issue involved either in the trial or during the course of the appeal. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Jahira Habibulla H. Sheikh & Ors. v. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 2004 SC 346 has propounded and enunciated the law on this subject and this court is aptly guided by this judgment.
6. In light of the above, the instant revision petition deserves to be allowed and accordingly, the learned court of appeal is directed to take on record the receipt executed between the parties and the reply of the notice dated 02.04.2013 submitted alongwith the application under Section 391 Cr.P.C. and the same may be taken into account while hearing the appeal. He may be permitted to lead evidence in this regard if he moves an application and where after the learned Court of Appeal would exercise its discretion as contemplated under Section 386 of the Cr.P.C. Needless to say that the opponent has an absolute right to refute and rebut the evidence additionally adduced on behalf of the petitioner party and in the event any such application is moved, the learned judge shall entertain the same and the only requirement would be to see the relevancy and admissibility of the documents for a just decision of the case.
