The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court has the discretion to accept or reject additional evidence under Section 391 Cr.P.C. and may consider conflicting expert opinions in determining the admissibility of such evidence.

ORDER

H.S. Madaan, J. - This revision petition is directed against the order dated 18.3.2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar vide which such Court had dismissed an application under Section 391 Cr.P.C. filed by appellant/accused Seema Gupta for additional evidence. The revisionist Seema Gupta prays that the revision petition be accepted, the impugned order be set aside and her application for additional evidence be allowed.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that complainant Vijay Kumar Singla had filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the Act)against accused Chander Parkash Gupta and his wife Seema Gupta (present petitioner), both residents of VPO Jewra, District Hisar, on the allegations that complainant along with both the accused had been partners/members in Manav Nirman Samiti, VPO Jewra, District Hisar, running educational institutions in the name and style of Manav Institute; subsequently differences arose between the parties and they decided to part ways; an agreement took place between them to settle the accounts regarding the assets and liabilities of Manav Nirmal Samiti; the total worth of the institution was calculated to be 9.21 crores; another agreement was arrived at between the parties on 23.7.2010; the complainant was found entitled to get Rs.1,17,92,307/- and Rs.23,58,461/-from the accused; again another compromise was arrived at between the parties on 9.10.2012; the accused in order to discharge their financial liability towards the complainant had issued an account payee cheque bearing No.088559 dated 11.4.2014 drawn on SBI Old Anaj Mandi Road, Opposite Sushila Bhawan, Hisar in the sum of Rs.75 lakhs from their account in favour of the complainant; the complainant had presented the cheque for encashment through his banker i.e. SBI, New Grain Market Branch, Hisar but it was returned uncashed for the reason of insufficiency of funds in the account of accused on 15.4.2014; the complainant served legal notice dated 23.4.2014 upon the accused within 15 days of receipt of information from the bank calling upon the accused to make payment of the cheque amount but to no effect, as such he had brought complaint under Section 138 of the Act against both the accused.

3. After institution of complaint, the complainant led preliminary evidence. Thereafter, the accused were summoned to face trial, notice of accusation was served upon them . On completion of trial vide judgment dated 10.10.2017, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Hisar convicted both the accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Act and vide order dated 11.10.2017 sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay double of the cheque amount. Further the accused/convicts were directed to pay the compensation of Rs.one crore, fifty lakh (Rs. 1,50,00,000/-) to the complainant, as the complainant has not only suffered loss due to the action of accused by way of loosing interest on the amount of cheque, but also incurred an expenses in pursuing the present complaint. However, the amount of compensation would be payable to the complainant in case of this order attaining finality, after decision of the appeal/revision, if any.

4. Feeling aggrieved, the accused had filed an appeal before the Court of Sessions, which was assigned to Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, during the Course of which appellant/accused Seema Gupta had moved an application under Section 391 Cr.P.C. for additional evidence contending that her alleged signatures on the cheque in question were forged; though she had taken a specific plea in that regard before the trial Court and the complainant had examined Sh.Yashpal Chand Jain, Handwriting and Finger Prints Expert as PW3, who had stated that such signatures were genuine; that she had examined Sh.Devender Prasad, Handwriting and Finger Prints Expert in her defence evidence as DW6, who had deposed that signatures on the cheque in question