The main legal point established in the judgment is that the condition precedent for filing a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 must be satisfied for the complaint to be maintainable.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Vishal Kumar Trivedi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners.

2. Heard Mr. Pawan Kumar Pathak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 2.

3. Heard Mr. Birendra Burman, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State.

4. This criminal revision application has been filed against the judgment dated 22nd May, 2014 passed by learned Judicial Commissioner-IV, Ranchi in Cr. Appeal No. 71 of 2013 whereby he has been pleased to dismiss the appeal and has been pleased to affirm the judgment dated 18th February, 2013 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi in Complaint Case No. 1028 of 2010 / T.R. No. 1101 of 2013 whereby the petitioners were convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and they were further directed to pay Rs. 1,40,000/- by way of compensation under Section 357(3) of the Cr. P.C. to the Complainant (Opposite Party No. 2).

I.A. (Cr.) No. 8795 of 2019

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that one Interlocutory Application being I.A. (Cr.) No. 8795 of 2019 has been filed in the present case for additional evidence at this stage.

6. Learned counsel has referred to the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Vinod Kumar vs. Smt. Mohrawati reported in 1990 Cri. Law Journal 2068 and another judgment also passed by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Bhagwan Swaroop –vs- State of U.P. and others decided on 21st November, 2014 in an application under Section 482 Cr. P.C bearing No. 4670 of 2003, to submit that it has been held that additional evidence at revisional stage is also permissible and accordingly, the present petition for additional evidence is maintainable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel has referred to Section 401 of the Cr. P.C. and submitted that the powers which are conferred upon the court under Section 391 of the Cr. P.C. is available to the revisional court and accordingly, additional evidence which is permissible as per Section 391 Cr. P.C. is also permissible in the revisional jurisdiction of this court.

7. Learned counsel by referring to Interlocutory Application has submitted that reasons for not adducing evidence earlier, which is sought to be adduced at this stage, have been mentioned and the additional evidences are essential for rendering complete justice to the parties and accordingly, the same may be allowed and appropriate order may be passed.

8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party has opposed the prayer made in Interlocutory Application and has submitted that the petition for additional evidence is an afterthought and the same may not be allowed.

9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the Interlocutory Application, this court finds that as per the case of the petitioners, the material which is sought to be adduced by way of additional evidence was inadvertently left out due to reasons beyond the control of the petitioners, although the same were made available to the conducting lawyer in the court who appeared for the petitioners at the stage of trial, who failed to appreciate the same. It has been stated in the petition that the photocopies of the documents which are sought to be introduced as additional evidence are annexed with the revision application.

10. This court finds that apparently the evidence which is sought to be produced at this stage were available with the petitioners and the reason for not adducing such evidence at appropriate stage appears to be an afterthought and with a view to fill up the gap in the case. The petitioners did not take any steps even at the appellate stage when certainly it must have come to light that the said documents were not exhibited. This court further finds that the documents which are sought to be introduced by way of additional evidence are relating to one agreement executed