Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 22172
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M. Nagaprasanna, J
MR. HANUMANTHA – Appellant
Versus
MR. B.R.RAVI – Respondent
CRL.P No. 658 of 2026 | CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 658 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Aditya S Kumar
For the Respondents: Anand H.
The court allowed an application under Section 391 of the Cr.P.C. to produce additional evidence at the appellate stage in a Section 138 NI Act case, directing the appellate court to conclude proceedings within four months.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure - Additional Evidence - Application under Section 391 Cr.P.C. - Permission to produce additional documents at the appellate stage granted to ensure a comprehensive adjudication of the case, provided the proceedings are concluded within a stipulated timeframe. (Para 5)
Issues: Whether the petitioner should be permitted to adduce additional evidence under Section 391 of the Cr.P.C. at the appellate stage.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge against the rejection of an application for additional evidence at the appellate stage. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. submissions regarding the necessity of producing documents to clarify the transaction amount. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. granting of permission for additional evidence with a mandate for time-bound disposal of the appeal. (Para 5 , 6) |
Digitally signed by SANJEEVINI J
Location: High Court of Karnataka
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED U/S 391 OF CR.P.C (ANNEXURE-B) BY THE PETITIONER/APPELLANT AND THEREBY PERMIT THE PETITIONER/APPELLANT TO ADDUCE HIS FURTHER EVIDENCE AND ALSO PERMIT THE PETITIONER/APPELLANT TO EXAMINE THE PRAKASH AS AN ADDITIONAL WITNESS IN THE CRL.A.NO.1633/2024, PENDING BEFORE THE LXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT BANGALORE (CCH-63).
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner is convicted for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('the NI Act' for short) and is before the Court calling in question the rejection of an application filed by him under Section 391 of the Cr.P.C., wanting to produce certain documents at the appellate stage. The facts need not be gone in detail for the issue that is projected before the Court at this juncture.
2. Heard Sri. Aditya S. Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Anand H., learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/complainant would submit that the concerned Court has passed appropriate orders by declining to accept the application filed by the petitioner under Section 391 of the Cr.P.C. for production of additional evidence.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that if this is produced, the cheque amount is only Rs.3,00,000/- and the transaction is between two people who had parted or entered into a transaction of a partery sum. In that light, the learned counsel would however submit that in the event the petition would be allowed, the concerned appellate Court must be directed to conclude the proceedings within time frame as would be fixed.
5. In the light of the order passed on the consensus of both the petitioner and the respondent, the application under Section 391 of the Cr.P.C. that is filed before the concerned Court stands allowed. The petitioner is permitted to file those documents before the concerned Court. The concerned Court shall, while taking the issue to its logical conclusion, consider those documents that are now to be placed on record, as well and conclude the proceedings within an outer limit of four months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, if not earlier, in accordance with law.
6. With the aforesaid observation, the petition stands disposed.
Ordered accordingly.
