CRIMINAL REVISION NO.376 OF 2008 :{ 1 }:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

DATE OF DECISION: SEPTEMBER 12, 2008

Yashpal

.....Petitioner

VERSUS

The State of Punjab

....Respondent

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

PRESENT:

Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Advocate,

for the petitioner.

Mr. Mehardeep Singh, AAG, Punjab,

for the State.

Mr. Sanjiv Pandey, Advocate,

for the complainant.

****

RANJIT SINGH, J.

The petitioner stands convicted for offences under

Sections 498A and 406 IPC by JMIC, Ludhiana. The petitioner was

sentenced to suffer RI for 2 years coupled with fine of Rs.1000/-

under Section 406 IPC and RI for 1 year with fine of Rs.500/- for an

offence under Section 498A IPC.

The petitioner impugned his conviction for the said

offences and sentence awarded to him by filing appeal before First

CRIMINAL REVISION NO.376 OF 2008 :{ 2 }:

Appellate Court at Ludhiana. During the pendency of appeal, the

petitioner filed an application under Section 391 Cr.P.C., seeking

permission to lead some additional evidence. This application was

been declined by the First Appellate Court, which is now impugned

through the present revision petition filed before this Court.

The petitioner, an appellant before the Court of Additional

Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, filed application for additional evidence

by averring that he inadvertently could not prove enquiry report dated

5.1.1998 in a complaint made by him against his wife at Police

Station Mukharji Nagar, New Delhi. This enquiry report was allegedly

given by one ASI Tek Chand. The petitioner further prayed for

permission to place on record written statement filed by his wife and

rejoinder thereto by him to a petition filed under Section 24 of the

Hindu Marriage Act. Plea is that certain facts totally contrary to what

has been stated before the Trial Court were averred in these

pleadings. In addition, the petitioner also prayed for permission to

prove application given by the appellant for reservation of his

accommodation of Ooty Holiday Home. Claim of the petitioner is that

all these documents are necessary for proper adjudication of the

case and hence, permission sought by him be allowed.

This prayer of the petitioner was opposed by the

prosecution and also the complainant-wife. FIR in this case was

lodged on 29.5.1997 and that charge was framed against the

appellant on 13.8.1998. Parties were then allowed to lead evidence

and 7 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. The

petitioner then made a statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and had

CRIMINAL REVISION NO.376 OF 2008 :{ 3 }:

tendered certain documents including written statements and also

copy of the enquiry report. No such prayer was made for leading any

of these documents in evidence before the Trial Court. As per the

petitioner, this could not be done inadvertently and so prayer has

now been made under Section 391 Cr.P.C. at the appellate stage.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

The rights of the parties to lead additional evidence and

the duty and responsibility of the Court in this regard at the trial and

appellate stage in a criminal case is regulated by the provisions of

Section 311 Cr.P.C and Section 391 Cr.P.C. respectively. Since no

such prayer was made for leading additional evidence during the

course of trial, the considerations that are essential to be kept in view

in terms of Section 311 Cr.P.C. may not arise at the appellate stage

and this request, at this stage, basically would be regulated by the

provisions of Section 391 Cr.P.C.

Some interesti