The exercise of powers under Section 391 of the Criminal Procedure Code allows the Appellate Court discretion to admit additional evidence to uphold justice.

1. Since the common question of law arises in all the above revisions, therefore, they are decided simultaneously by this identical order.

2. These are the revisions under S.397 read with S.401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code'), whereby the application moved by the appellant / accused under S.391 of the Code has been dismissed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Balod to take further evidence in the case.

3. The brief facts of the cases are that, the case under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act' ) was filed by the respondent / complainant against the applicant / accused before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dallirajhara, District - Balod. The fact is not in dispute that while the case was pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, after closure of the evidence of the complainant, the case was fixed for time to time of the applicant / accused and ultimately, since the applicant / accused could not produce the witnesses, his right to adduce evidence was closed on 04.12.2012. The said closure of right to evidence was challenged before the revisional Court i.e. Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Balod. The Additional Sessions Judge, Balod by an order dated 28.02.2012 allowed the revision preferred by the applicant / accused and by such order the applicant / accused was given one and a half months time to adduce the defence evidence, predominantly that of the handwriting expert of Dr. Sunanda Dhenge. The order was communicated to the trial Court and on 02.03.2012. Thereafter, the trial Court fixed the complaint case on 13.04.2012 to produce the evidence of handwriting expert by this accused in terms of the order of Additional Sessions Judge. The trial Court by its order dated 02.03.2012 further ordered and refused to issue summons to procure the other defence witnesses, other than that of handwriting expert, Dr. Sunanda Dhenge.

4. Pursuant to such order, the applicant / accused was granted two days time to pay process fees so as to procure the presence of witness before the Court. Accordingly, the process was paid to procure the evidence of the handwriting expert, Dr. Sunanda Dhenge on the date of hearing i.e. 13.04.2012 for which it was filed. On 13.04.2012 an application was preferred on behalf of the summoned witness i.e. handwriting expert, Dr. Sunanda Dhenge for condonation of her appearance. The witness moved this application on the ground that since the expert is required to give evidence in a sessions trial before the Court of 9th Additional Sessions Judge at Bilaspur on the same day i.e. 13.04.2012, as such time was prayed for. The learned Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class after hearing the parties passed an order, whereby it was held that since, Dr. Sunanda Dhenge, handwriting expert was served through the summons on 10.03.2012 itself and therefore, the Court observed that when the summons were served earlier to the date fixed it should have been disclosed at the very moment itself. It was further observed that the expert had only filed such application for adjournment. It was further observed in the order that since one &a half month time was granted by, way of last chance, the Court of Sessions Judge in the revisional order, as such, it was the duty of the applicant to procure his defence on the date before the Court to adduce evidence. Since the presence of witness could not be procured as such the right to adduce the evidence was closed.

5. S