The Gujarat High Court expounded that the purpose of permitting additional evidence is to arrive at a just decision. It was held that production of documents at a belated stage cannot be a criteria to restrain the Court from exercising its power under Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”)

It was noted that even though acquittal order was issued in Respondent’s favor, however, the additional documents will have to be considered to prevent any miscarriage of justice.

Brief Facts:

The present application has been filed to seek leave to appeal under Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C. challenging the order of the Judicial Magistrate vide which the acquittal of the Respondent No.1/Accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was recorded.

The issue arose pertaining to some additional documents sought to be produced by the Applicant at the appellate stage.

Contentions of the Applicant:

It was argued that the powers under Section 391 of the Cr.P.C. can be invoked if the Court is of the view that the additional evidence is necessary. It was argued that mere lapse of period may not be relevant to refuse the production of additional documents at the appellate stage.

Contentions of the Respondent:

It was argued that there was sufficient opportunity to produce the documents during the trial. At this stage, permitting additional documents would be prejudicial.

Observations of the Court:

It was noted that the Respondent had purchased wheat from the Applicant. For the purposes of payment, two cheques were handed over which were returned by the Bank due to funds being insufficient.

Upon complaint being filed before the Judicial Magistrate, the case was to be tried as a summary trial case. After due consideration of the evidence, the Judicial Magistrate was of the view that the Respondent should be acquitted.

It was noted that the burden of proof was shifted on the Complainant to prove the case and in absence of evidence, the acquittal was recorded. Further, there were certain discrepancies in the amount that had to be paid by the Respondent.

Therefore, this Court was of the view that the additional documents require consideration at the stage of appeal. It was expounded that the purpose of permitting additional evidence is to arrive at a just decision.

It was held that production of documents at a belated stage cannot be a criteria to restrain the Court from exercising its power under Section 391 of Cr.P.C.

It was noted that even though acquittal order was issued in Respondent’s favor, however, the additional documents will have to be considered to prevent any miscarriage of justice.

The decision of the Court:

Based on the aforementioned analysis, the High Court allowed the production of additional evidence and directed the Magistrate to decide accordingly.

Case Title: Arjanbhai Parbatbhai Bhatariya v. Kamal Tanna

Case No.: R/Criminal Misc. Application No. 901 of 2022

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nisha M. Thakore

Advocate for Applicant: Adv. Mr. Monal S Chaglan

Advocate for Respondents: Adv. Mr Imran H Pathan

Read More @LatestLaws.com:

Picture Source :