The appellate Court has the power to allow additional evidence when it is necessary to enable it to give a correct finding, and the proposed additional evidence goes to the root of the case.

JUDGMENT

Arvind Singh Sangwan, J. - This order shall dispose of above-mentioned case as well as other four petitions* tabulated at the foot of the order as they are identical in nature and can conveniently be decided by a common order.

2. Prayer in these petitions is for setting setting aside the order dated 14.03.2017, vide which, the lower appellate Court had allowed two applications, filed by the respondent/accused, under Section 391 Cr.P.C., 1973 to lead additional evidence/documents.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant had filed six complaints under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'N.I. Act') with the allegations that the complainant is in the business of manufacturing and selling vehicles and their spare parts and had authorized the respondent/accused, being the proprietor of M/s Shivam Motors.

4. During the process of business, the respondent/accused issued twenty cheques and the same having been dishonoured by the bank, the petitioner/complainant filed six complaints under section 138 of the N.I. Act.

5. The trial Court, vide judgment dated 29.03.2014, allowed all the six complaints and held the respondent/accused guilty of commission of offence punishable under section 138 of the N.I. Act and convicted him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one and a half years and to pay the compensation equivalent to the total amount of the cheques (in six complaints) under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C., 1973

6. It is worthwhile noticing that in all the complaints, the complainant has led the same set of evidence i.e. General Manager Ashok Verma, who appeared as CW-1 and tendered his affidavit as Ex. CA along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C17 and closed primary evidence and thereafter, the respondent was summoned as accused.

7. In the pre-charge evidence, one Dhiraj Puri appeared as CW-1, who tendered his affidavit as Ex. CA and produced on record documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C16. This witness was cross-examined by the accused and in the cross-examination, he was put with certain documents which were marked as 'A' to 'D'. Thereafter, the evidence of the complainant was closed and after recording the statement of the accused, under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 in which he pleaded innocence and false implication and stated that the cheques were issued with a specific direction not to present the same for encashment as he was transferring the payment directly from his bank account to the complainant since June, 2006 and there was an understanding that if the accused fails to pay the amount, only then the cheques were to be encashed, however, the complainant misused the cheques in September, 2007 by presenting the same in the bank for encashment.

8. Respondent-accused, in defence, appeared as DW-1 and produced on record certain documents. In cross-examination, this witness admitted that the complainant had also filed suit for recovery of Rs. 2,81,49,976/-, which was pending.

9. After the conviction of the respondent/accused in all the six complaints, he had filed six appeals before the lower appellate Court and had also moved two separate applications under Section 391 Cr.P.C., 1973 In the first application, it is stated as under:

ii 6. That the appellant wishes to file the following additional documents/evidence in the present criminal appeal.

(i) Statement of bank account of appellant of Bank of India (date from 01.04.2006 to 17.01.2008) - which proves the defence of the appellant that the cheques in question were issued as security cheques in the year 2006 and not for payment in October, 2007.

(ii) Statement of ICICI Bank Ltd. (date from 02.05.2006 to 31.03.2007) - which proves the payment by the appellant from his "Inventory Funding Account" to the complainant for the 5 vehicles mentioned in Exh D1.

(iii) Statement of account of Swaraj Mazda Limited - which proves that the payment in respect the 8 cheques, which are subject matter of two appeals, have also been made.

(iv) Cash C