The parameters for letting in additional evidence under Section 391 Cr.P.C. must be satisfied, and the same standard must apply to both the prosecution and the accused.

JUDGMENT :

P.N. PRAKASH, J.

Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 Cr.P.C. seeking to set aside the order dated 07.03.2020 passed in Crl. M.P. No. 12968 of 2019 in Crl. Appeal No. 22 of 2019 on the file of the III Additional Sessions Court, City Civil Court, Chennai.

1. This case was taken up through video conferencing.

2. For the sake of convenience, the petitioner and the respondent will be referred to as the complainant and accused respectively.

3. It is the case of the complainant that the accused was his colleague in the Kilpauk Medical College Hospital and on that acquaintance, she availed a hand loan of Rs. 3,30,000/- from him and executed a promissory note dated 10.11.2014 (Ex.P.1); the accused did not pay interest for the said loan and ultimately, when the complainant started pre-zssurising her, she gave a post dated cheque for a sum of Rs. 3,30,000/- bearing the date 16.01.2016 (Ex.P.2); though the cheque was dated 16.01.2016, at the request of the accused, the complainant presented the cheque only on 28.03.2016 for clearance; the cheque was dishonoured on the ground “funds insufficient” vide return memo (Ex.P.3); hence, the complainant issued a statutory demand notice dated 31.03.2016 (Ex.P.4), which was received by the accused vide Ex.P.5 and Ex.P.6; however, the accused neither replied to the notice nor complied with the demand made in it and therefore, the complainant initiated a prosecution in C.C. No. 5846 of 2016 in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate (FTC No. 1), Egmore at Allikulam under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for brevity “the NI Act”).

4. The complainant examined himself as PW-1 and marked six exhibits. From the side of the accused, no witness was examined nor any document marked.

5. When the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on the incriminating circumstances appearing against her, she merely denied everything and did not offer any explanation as to the circumstances under which the impugned cheque was issued by her.

6. After hearing either side, the trial Court, by judgment and order dated 11.12.2018, convicted the accused of the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act and sentenced her to undergo six months simple imprisonment, besides directing her to pay the cheque amount as compensation, in default to undergo two months simple imprisonment. The sentence was suspended by the trial Court under Section 389(3) Cr.P.C.

7. Challenging her conviction and sentence, the accused filed Crl. Appeal No. 22 of 2019 in the Court of Session, which was made over to the III Additional Sessions Court for hearing. While so, the accused filed Crl. M.P. No. 12968 of 2019 in Crl. Appeal No. 22 of 2019 under Section 391 Cr.P.C. for adducing additional evidence. Despite the contest made by the complainant, the appellate Court allowed the petition filed by the accused, on 07.03.2020, challenging which, the complainant is before this Court.

8. Heard Mr. J.R.K. Bhavanandham, learned counsel representing Ms. M. Sabitha, learned counsel on record for the complainant and Mr.N.Baskaran, learned counsel for the accused.

9. It is trite that additional evidence can be adduced in the appellate Court under Section 391 Cr.P.C. by any party to the appeal, but, the party who seeks to let in additional evidence, has to place before the appellate Court, satisfactory reasons substantiating his prayer.

10. In this case, the accused has stated in the petition filed by her under Section 391 Cr.P.C. that she had not borrowed Rs. 3.30 lakhs from the complainant on 10.11.2014 nor issued the impugned cheque dated 16.01.2016; she had borrowed Rs. 3 lakhs from the complainant on 10.11.2009 and had registered a mortgage deed in favour of the complainant; at the time of registration of the mortgage deed, the complainant had stealthily taken away the cheque book that was kept by her in her bag and has misused the cheque subsequently for launching the present prosecution; therefore, the accused must be