The court upheld that under Section 391 Cr.P.C., the introduction of additional evidence must be relevant and not merely to fill gaps in an already established case. The dismissal of the petition was justified due to the sufficiency of existing evidence.

ORDER:

TIRUMALA DEVI EADA, J.

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused aggrieved by the order dated 17.07.2023 passed in Crl.MP No.7 of 2025 in Crl.A. No.21 of 2021 by the V Additional Sessions Judge at Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District, whereunder the petition filed under Section 391 Cr.P.C., seeking to adduce additional evidence before the Sessions Court, is dismissed.

2. Heard Sri G. Sundaresan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri N.V. Anantha Krishna, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.2-State.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is the accused in CC No.1235 of 2015 for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short ‘NI Act’) and the same ended in conviction and sentence against the petitioner. Challenging the said judgment of conviction, the petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No.21 of 2021 on the file of the V Additional Sessions Judge, Miryalaguda. He further submitted that during the pendency of the said appeal, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 391 Cr.P.C., before the appellate court to recall the witness- PW.1, respondent No.1 herein, to enable her to further cross- examine PW.1, on his evidence given in the money recovery suit filed by him against the petitioner vide O.S. No.832 of 2015 on the file of III-Additional district court, Ranga Reddy District. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in the evidence of respondent No.1-de facto complainant in O.S.No.832 of 2015, several contradictions and variations were brought out and that she intends to confront the said contradictions and variations by recalling PW.1, and that the appellate court ought to have allowed the petition to enable the petitioner to adduce the additional evidence by summoning PW.1. He further submitted that the contradictions and the variations in the evidence of PW.1 in the money recovery suit may help the petitioner in proving her innocence, which may end up in acquittal, but the appellate court has dismissed the petition, which may cause prejudice to the rights of the petitioner. He, therefore, prayed to set aside the impugned order and allow the application filed by the petitioner under Section 391 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Telanakula Kasi Viswanadham v. Pokuri Maruthi Prasad , [2019 (4) ALT 223 (AP)]

4. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has submitted that the evidence of PW.1 in the money recovery suit is irrelevant in the present case and that under Section 391 Cr.P.C., only additional evidence has to be adduced, but a witness before the civil court cannot be recalled in the criminal case. He further submitted that the suit is filed in the year 2015 and eversince then, it has been prolonged and the CC under Section 138 of NI Act is also filed in 2015 and that it has been dragged on for the past 10 years, but till date the respondent No.2 is denied the returns from the petitioner inspite of proving his case under 138 of NI Act. He further submitted that the petitioner has filed the present petition only to drag on the proceedings and that the petition itself is not maintainable for the relief sought for by the petitioner. He, therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition and uphold the order passed by the appellate court.

5. Perused the record.

6. The petitioner is the accused in a case under Section 138 of NI Act vide CC No.1235 of 2015. The said case was ended in conviction, against which the petitioner filed Crl.A