ORDER

This petition has been filed by the accused/appellant to set aside the order passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, in Crl.M.P.No.2454 of 2019 in C.A.No.350 of 2017 dated 24.06.2019.

2. The respondent herein had filed a private complaint against the petitioner herein alleging that the petitioner herein had committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Based on the said complaint, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court No.IV, George Town, Chennai-1, had taken the case on file in C.C.No.4045 of 2013 and after full trial, he convicted the petitioner herein and sentenced to undergo six months simple imprisonment and to pay a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- to the respondent herein and in default to undergo a further period of two months simple imprisonment.

3. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein had filed an appeal in C.A.No.350 of 2017 on the file of the First Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai. During pendency of the said appeal, the petitioner herein had filed an application under Section 391 Cr.P.C., in Crl.M.P.No.2454 of 2019 seeking permission of the Appellate Court for adducing additional evidence by marking the certified copies of the plaint in O.S.No.193 of 2013 on the file of the Sub-Judge, Valliyur and written statement filed by the defendants in the said suit.

4. The learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.2454 of 2019 in C.A.No.350 of 2019 has passed an order on 24.06.2019 which reads thus:-

“Both side present. The contention of the petitioner being appellant is that this application to receive additional evidence be taken before the main appeal being taken up for disposal on merits. In the case of Ravichandran and Others -Vs- Paramasivam, of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras, reported in CDJ-2014- MHC-337, it had been held that the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC should be heard along with the appeal on merits and in the case of Parasmal Jain and Others -Vs- M.Rajesh of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras, reported in CDJ-2015-MHC-5946, it had been held that Section 391 Cr.P.C., is akin to Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC. As this is an application to receive additional evidence filed under Section 391 of Cr.P.C., it would be appropriate to consider this application along with the appeal on merits to consider whether the additional evidence is necessary for the purpose. Hence, for enquiry call along with the main appeal. Call on

17.07.2019.”

5. Challenging the aforesaid order, the accused/appellant has filed the present petition.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the event of the petitioner's application in Crl.M.P.No.2454 of 2019 is dismissed by the Appellate Court at the time of pronouncing the judgment in the appeal, the petitioner would not have a chance to challenge the same and hence, the Appellate Court should not have posted Crl.M.P.No.2454 of 2019 along with the main appeal. He further submitted that Crl.M.P.No.2454 of 2019 should have been heard independently and a separate order should have been passed and in such a case, the aggrieved person may challenge the said order before this Court.

7. In support of the aforesaid contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following decisions:-

1) Premier Automobiles Limited, Bombay Vs. Kabirunissa and Others, CDJ 1990 SC 518.

2) Brig.Sukhjeet Singh (Retd.) MVC Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, CDJ 2019 SC 078.

3) Rambhau Vs. State of Maharashtra, CDJ 2001 SC 294 = 2001 (4) SCC 759.

4) K.Thakshinamoorthy Vs. The Inspector of Police, SPE/CBI/ACB, Chennai, MP.(MD).No.1 of 2011 in Crl.A.(MD).No.544 of 2007 dated 14.03.2012.

8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that since the application is filed under Section 391 Cr.P.C., the said application has to be heard along with the main appeal and then only the Appellate Court can take a decision, as to whether, additional evidence is necessar