The court emphasized that allowing additional evidence that could have been produced earlier would amount to a retrial of the case and prejudice the rights of the respondent-complainant.

JUDGMENT

Ramendra Jain, J. (Oral) - Through this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C, petitioners have assailed order dated 18.12.2019 (Annexure P-1) of the Appellate Court, whereby their two applications under Sections 391 Cr.P.C. for production of additional evidence, were dismissed.

2. Briefly, in a complaint, filed by respondent under Section138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short 'the Act') against petitioners, the petitioners were afforded full opportunities to lead evidence to their satisfaction. They examined two witnesses in defence. Thereafter, they voluntarily closed their defence evidence.

3. Learned trial court, after hearing both the sides, accepting the complaint of respondent, held petitioner No.2 guilty under Section 138 of the Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 138 of the Act and to pay total cheque amount i.e. Rs. 19,00,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of cheque till realization vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.12.2017.

4. Being aggrieved, petitioners filed appeal alongwith application under Section 391 Cr.P.C. to prove statements of accounts and books of accounts. Subsequently, petitioners moved another application under Section 391 Cr.P.C. to prove stock register and books of account.

5. The Appellate court, after hearing both the parties, dismissed both the applications vide impugned order dated 18.12.2019.

6. Learned counsel for petitioners, relying upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Gujarat vs. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal and another 1987 (2) SCC 364 , Brig. Sukhieet Singh (Retd. ) MVC vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. 2019 (1) RCR (Criminal) 895 and of this Court in Balbir Singh and another vs. Kulwant Singh and another 2019 (2) RCR (Criminal) 731 , contends that Appellate Court in the impugned order was required to give any specific finding as to whether the additional evidence sought to be produced by appellant was necessary for effective adjudication of the case. Since, no such finding has been recorded by the appellate court, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

7. Having given thoughtful consideration to the above submissions, this court finds the instant petition merits dismissal for the reasons to follow.

8. For ready reference, the relevant portion of the impugned order is reproduced hereunder-

"A perusal of trial court file shows that complainant/respondent filed complaint under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act against the accused, due to dishonouring of cheque dated 19.08.2014 of Rs.19 Lacs. Accused examined two witnesses in defence evidence and availed a number of opportunities. Vide judgment dated 22.12.2017, learned JMIC, Jalandhar acquitted accused Amarjit Singh but convicted accused Inderpreet Singh and sentenced him to undergo Rl for two years and to pay compensation of Rs.19 Lacs alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of cheque till decision. Accused/appellant preferred present appeal. Alongwith the appeal, first application under Section 391 Cr.P.C. was moved, seeking permission to examine the accountant and to prove statements of accounts, bills, books of accounts and Income tax returns. It was contended that the necessity to prove these documents has been felt only because the learned trial court has held that the accused have failed to prove statements of accounts as well as the books of account. Thereafter second application was filed seeking permission to examine the accountant and to prove stock register and books of account. It was claimed that the same could not be produced at the appropriate time as these were lying with the accountant, with whom there was dispute and that the firm has also shifted from Shastri Market to some other place. The explanation furnished by the applicants for non-production of account books and other record in the trial court is hardly convincing. It was never claimed before the trial court that acc