Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Tri) 36

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AT AGARTALA
BISWAJIT PALIT, J.
The Chief Manager, LICI, Agartala – Appellant
Versus
The State of Tripura – Respondent
Crl. Rev. Pet. No. 20 of 2024
Decided On : 15-05-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : A. Bhattacharjee
For the Respondents: S. Ghosh, S.D. Choudhuri

The appellate court has the authority to admit additional evidence but must do so according to procedural law, ensuring fairness and compliance with defined legal requirements.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 397 and 401 - Appeal against acquittal - Revision petition against the order of the Sessions Judge directing the record of additional evidence by the Chief Judicial Magistrate - Appellant's request for additional evidence approved but with directions not warranted by law - Errors in the prior disposal of the appeal found by the High Court. (Paras 6, 14, 15)

(B) Court's powers under the Criminal Procedure Code - Proper procedure for admitting additional evidence laid out - Court emphasized the need for reasons when taking additional evidence. (Paras 12, 16)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged an acquittal order, seeking to record additional evidence, which was initially denied but later allowed with unintended consequences on the trial process.

Findings of Court:
The High Court recognized the flaws in the Sessions Judge's directive regarding re-examination of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C and ordered corrections to ensure compliance with legal provisions.

Issues: The principal issues addressed included adherence to legal procedures in taking additional evidence under the Criminal Procedure Code and the implications for trial fairness.

Ratio Decidendi: The court clarified that while the appellate court can call for additional evidence, it must not direct the trial court in a way that disregards the procedural mandates of the Code.

Result: Revision petition partly allowed and the order modified.

Table of Content
1. criminal revision petition context. (Para 1 , 2)
2. history of the appeal and procedural applications. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. judgment and procedural directives. (Para 6 , 11)
4. arguments regarding the appeal process. (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
5. appellate court powers regarding additional evidence. (Para 12 , 13)
6. court's observations on jurisdiction errors. (Para 14 , 15 , 17)
7. final conclusion and order. (Para 18)

JUDGMENT :

BISWAJIT PALIT, J.

1. This Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. is filed challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 13.03.2024 passed in Crl. App. No.20 of 2016 by Learned Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala.

2. Heard Mr. A. Bhattacharjee, Learned Counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Ghosh, Learned Addl. P.P. representing the State and Mr. S. D. Choudhuri, Learned Counsel representing the respondent nos.2 and 3.

3. The petitioner in this petition has submitted that an appeal was preferred by the Senior Manager, LIC, Agartala on 04.03.2016 which was numbered as Crl. App. No.20 of 2016 under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. read with Section 374 of Cr.P.C challenging the judgment dated 23.12.2015 delivered by Learned CJM, West Tripura, Agartala in connection with G.R. No.230 of 2002 acquitting the respondent nos.2 and 3 from the charge framed against them under Section 409 /471/468/411 of IPC.

4. According to the petitioner, during the pendency of appeal on 20.07.2021 in course of hearing of argument, Learned Counsel for the appellant i.e. the petitioner herein submitted that some additional evidence was necessary to record in the case in order to arrive at a proper decision in the appeal and on the same date, Learned Counsel for the petitioner filed one application under Section 391(1) of Cr.P.C for recording additional evidence in dealing with the appeal and on 01.10.2021, Learned Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala after hearing both the parties rejected the same petition and being aggrieved with the said order dated 01.10.2021 passed by Learned Sessions Judge, the petitioner preferred a Criminal petition along with a interlocutory application before the High Court against the said order dated 01.10.2021, which were numbered as Crl. Pet. No.47 of 2021 and I.A. No.1 of 2021. After that, by a judgment and order dated 24.02.2022, this High Court allowed the Crl. Pet. No.47 of 2021 filed by the petitioner setting aside the order dated 01.10.2021 passed by Learned Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala subject to recovery of cost of Rs.2,00,000/- from the concerned officers of LICI who were posted in the concerned Branch during the period with effect from 10.05.1999 to 14.06.2021.

5. Further, according to petitioner, on 01.11.2022, Learned Counsel for the petitioner informed the Learned Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, regarding the realization of Rs.2,00,000/- from 10 officials of LICI in compliance with the order of the High Court of Tripura and accordingly, Learned Sessions Judge gave an opportunity to the petitioner to proceed further with the application under Section 391(1) of Cr.P.C. and ultimately on 05.02.2024, Learned P.P. produced all documents by a Firisti before the Learned Sessions Judge and on 02.03.2024, Learned Counsel for the petitioner filed the name of one witness namely Shri I. S. Rao, Asstt. Government Examiner of question documents, Kolkata, West Bengal.

6. Thereafter, by Judgment and Order dated 13.03.2024, Learned Sessions Judge, West Tripura, disposed of the Crl. App. No.20 of 2016 with the following observations:

“So, considering the facts and circumstances of the case I find it prudent to send back the original case record of G.R. 230 of 2002 with all the documents including the documents produced by learned Public Prosecutor before this Court on 5.2.2024 to the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura, Agartala with a direction to the learned Trial Court to record the additional evidence by sum