The power to allow additional evidence must be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases where it serves the interests of justice.

1. Contentions raised by the petitioner is that the respondent-Kiran Pargul, who happened to be old friend of petitioner, misused one of the blank cheques of the petitioner lying with him as trust against the payments of chit fund committees in raising a false and frivolous litigation against him in the form of a criminal complaint under section 138 N.I. Act by filling up an enormous amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- (Six Lac) in the same. The petitioner was not liable to pay any such amount to the respondent. The petitioner contested the same but he has been convicted by the learned Sub-Judge, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Batote, vide his order dated 16.12.2013 in the complaint filed by the respondent.

2. The petitioner being aggrieved of the said order of conviction filed an appeal before the Sessions Judge Ramban, which is pending disposal. It is stated in the petition that during the course of arguments before the trial Court, two major aspects improperly attended during recording of evidence before the trial court were observed and accordingly the petitioner preferred to avail his legal right to fair trial by way of additional evidence and had filed an application under section 428 Cr.P.C. for recording of additional evidence before the Appellate Court to which the respondents also filed objections The appellate Court rejected the said application of the petitioner and passed order dated 20-07-2018.

3. Through the medium of present revision petition, petitioner seeks revision of the said order on the grounds that the impugned order is bad in the eyes of law and is against the facts. Moreover, it is submitted that the said order is arbitrary and is based on surmises and conjectures and has been passed without taking into consideration the arguments as well as the written arguments tendered by the parties is full of whim and caprice and is bad in eyes of law.

4. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that during the cross-examination of the complainant-respondent, he had produced his accounts/bahi khata which is not admissible as an evidence and for the purpose of corroborating the same, he requested the counsel for complainant to produce the relevant documents of income tax returns and to which the complainant had refused; the then counsel of the petitioner had not further cross-examined the complainant as non-production of such document draws adverse inference against the complainant, but had the complainant been further cross-examined and name of his income-tax Advocate been asked to him and the relevant documents of income tax return of the complainant/respondent been called for, the same would had disclosed the truthfulness of the matter in the absence of any entry showing any such alleged debt, the Appellate Court below has not given any reasoning as to why the same cannot be called. The only objection referred to by the Appellate Court in this matter is that the transactions were below 20,000/- and as such no entry was required to be made in the balance sheet or the documents concerning the income tax returns.

5. It is further contended that the stand of the respondent is not tenderable because the Balance sheet or the income tax return does reflect the overall position of debt and credit in it and not every mini transaction, the overall debt alleged to be dischargeable on the part of the petitioner is stated to be 6 lac and the balance sheet or the documents of income tax return were supposed to be filed. Petitioner has taken a stand before the trial Court that he had given 20 blank signed cheques to the complainant/respondent during committee transactions and he had misused one of the same and during the examination of witnesses, it is reflected that the petitioner had given cheque after settlement of the accounts and which are contrary to each other and in order to settle this issue it was vital to send the said cheque to the FSL for determination of age of writing of the cheque body and the signatures of the pe