Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for Rajesh Jain VS Ajay Singh...
Checking relevance for Ajitsinh Chehuji Rathod VS State Of Gujarat...
2024 2 Supreme 150 : Under Section 391 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the power to record additional evidence should only be exercised when the party seeking it was prevented from presenting evidence during the trial despite due diligence, or when new facts emerged during the pendency of the appeal, and failure to record such evidence may result in a failure of justice. In a cheque dishonour case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the presumption under Section 118 and Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, along with Section 6 of the Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891, favors the holder in due course, and the accused must lead evidence to rebut the genuineness of endorsements or signatures. The appellate court is not obligated to assist the accused in collecting defence evidence, such as by ordering a handwriting expert comparison, especially when the accused had prior opportunity to do so but failed to act. The rejection of a prayer for handwriting comparison, which was previously denied by the trial court and not challenged, cannot be reopened at the final hearing stage unless the conditions under Section 391 are met. Therefore, re-opening the complainant’s evidence or allowing additional evidence at the final hearing stage is not permissible unless the strict criteria under Section 391 are satisfied.Checking relevance for Milind Shripad Chandurkar VS Kalim M. Khan...
2011 0 Supreme(SC) 249 : The legal documents indicate that the appellant/complainant did not make any attempt to adduce additional evidence at the appellate stage, and no document was filed to substantiate his averments. This establishes that the court did not allow the re-opening of evidence or the adducing of additional evidence at the final hearing stage, particularly when such evidence was not produced earlier. The failure to produce documents or evidence during the initial proceedings was deemed insufficient to meet the legal requirements, and there was no cogent reason to interfere with the High Court''''s judgment. Therefore, the documents confirm that applications to re-open evidence or allow additional evidence at the final hearing stage are not permitted if such evidence was not presented earlier, and the court may refuse to consider such applications.Checking relevance for Kalyani Baskar VS M. S. Sampornam...
Checking relevance for T. Nagappa VS Y. R. Muralidhar...
2008 3 Supreme 196 : When a contention of misuse of a cheque has been raised, the accused must be granted an opportunity to adduce evidence, notwithstanding the presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Additionally, under Section 243(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Article 21 of the Constitution of India, an accused has a right to a fair trial and to adduce evidence. Ordinarily, an accused should be allowed to approach the court for assistance in summoning witnesses or obtaining forensic examination of the cheque. The request for forensic examination of the cheque was bona fide and should not have been rejected, especially when the accused raised a genuine contention of misuse. The court emphasized that the non-mentioning or wrong mentioning of a legal provision does not affect the court''''s jurisdiction to pass an order if it has the requisite authority. Therefore, the accused''''s application for forensic examination at the final hearing stage should have been allowed to re-open the complainant''''s evidence and permit adducing additional evidence.Checking relevance for Uttam Ram VS Devinder Singh Hudan...
Checking relevance for APS FOREX SERVICES PVT. LTD. VS SHAKTI INTERNATIONAL FASHION LINKERS...
Checking relevance for Vivek VS Krishan Kumar...
2023 0 Supreme(P&H) 739 : The court declined an application for leading additional evidence under Section 391 Cr.P.C. filed at the final hearing stage in a cheque case, holding that the provision is not intended to remedy the negligence or latches of a party. The court emphasized that when a party had ample opportunity to adduce evidence during the trial but failed to do so due to carelessness or omission, it is not desirable to exercise power under Section 391 Cr.P.C. to allow additional evidence at a later stage. In this case, the petitioner''''s claim of disputed signature was considered an afterthought, and the cheque was dishonoured due to the closure of the bank account, not signature discrepancy. Therefore, there was no necessity for additional evidence, and the application to re-open the complainant''''s evidence or allow adducing additional evidence was dismissed.Checking relevance for Mahaveer VS State of Rajasthan...
Mahaveer VS State of Rajasthan - Crimes (2022)
: There is no necessity to recall and re-examine the complainant after the summoning of the accused, unless the Magistrate passes a specific order requiring such recall. Evidence on affidavit is admissible and sufficient at both the pre-summoning and post-summoning stages. The affidavit and documents filed with the complaint are good enough to be read in evidence at both stages, and the complainant is not required to examine himself twice. Therefore, re-opening the complainant''''s evidence or allowing additional evidence at the final hearing stage is not mandatory unless specifically ordered by the Magistrate.
