The appellate court's power to admit additional evidence under Section 391 Cr.P.C. is limited to exceptional cases where justice necessitates it, not as an afterthought post-trial.

ORDER :

1. The present revision petitions under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C have been filed against the order dated 25.01.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Udaipur whereby, the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 391 Cr.P.C. for adducing evidence was dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent lodged a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, against the petitioner, whereupon a case bearing no. 16532/2015 came to be registered against him before the learned Special Judicial Magistrate No. 1 (N.I. Act Cases), Udaipur. Thereafter, during the course of trial, the complainant-respondent in his cross-examination stated that his family had sold certain lands, in lieu of a consideration of Rs. 21,00,000/-, out of which a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- was given to the accused-petitioner. Thereafter, the accused-petitioner preferred an application under Sections 91 and 311 Cr.P.C. to bring on the record the respondent's bank statements for the year 2012-2013 and the sale deed of the lands in question. The learned Court below partly allowed the application vide order dated 19.01.2021, granting the petitioner liberty to produce the bank statements of respondent for year 2012-13, and sale deed of land in question at the stage of his defence and respondent will also have right to cross-examination.

3. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred criminal misc. petition before this Court being S.B. Criminal Misc. petition No. 8166/2022. The said misc. petition came to be dismissed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.12.2022.

4. Subsequently, on 13.01.2023, the petitioner filed an application under Section 391 Cr.P.C. with the prayer to summon and take the copy of registry on record. However, the trial court rejected the said application filed by the petitioner vide order dated 08.02.2023. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred misc. petition being S.B. Criminal Misc. petition No. 1882/2023. However, during pendency of the criminal misc. petition, the petitioner came to be convicted vide order dated 20.09.2023 and aforesaid criminal misc. petition was withdrawn.

5. At the appellate stage, the petitioner preferred an application under Section 391 Cr.P.C. for summoning the copy of registry of the land sold by the respondent. The said application filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed by the appellate court by way of impugned order dated 25.01.2024 while imposing a cost of Rs.5,000/- upon the petitioner.

6. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the appellate court has committed grave error of law in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Section 391 Cr.P.C inasmuch as the document is vital for just decision of the case. It is argued that the petitioner has raised question with regard to financial capacity of the complainant and therefore, it is essential to bring on record the copy of registry of land sold by the complainant. It is prayed that dismissal of the application under Section 391 Cr.P.C to bring on record essential piece of evidence, will result into grave injustice to the petitioner and therefore, the same is liable to be allowed.

7. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order and argued that the learned Court below while partly allowing the application vide order dated 19.01.2021, granting the petitioner liberty to produce the bank statements of respondent for year 2012-13, and sale deed of land in question at the stage of his defence and respondent will also have right to cross-examination. However, despite ample opportunities, the petitioner failed to produce the said document and now after conclusion of trial, at the appellate stage, the petitioner is seeking to produce the said documents only with an intention to delay the matter. Therefore, the appellate court has rightly dismissed the applica