Mohani Kanwar W/O Late Jeevan ... vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 3899 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

       S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1024/2020

1.     Mohani Kanwar W/o Late Jeevan Singh D/o Late Roop
       Singh, Aged About 82 Years, R/o Chichdoli Police Station
       Bagar, Distt. Jhunjhunu Raj.
2.     Smt. Chandan Kanwar W/o Late Shivpal Singh @ Shyopal
       Singh D/o Roop Singh, Aged About 80 Years, R/o
       Chichdoli Police Station Bagar, Distt. Jhunjhunu Raj.
3.     Dalip Singh Adopted S/o Shyopal Singh (S/o Late
       Bhagirath Singh), Aged About 60 Years, R/o Chichdoli
       Police Station Bagar, Distt. Jhunjhunu At Present R/o Plot
       No. 99, Marg No. 15 Kailash Nagar, Jhotwara Jaipur Raj.
                                                                    ----Petitioners
                                     Versus
1.     State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
2.     Smt. Ucchav Kanwar So Called W/o Jeevan Singh, So-
       Called,      R/o    Chichdoli        Police      Station     Bagar,   Distt.
       Jhunjhunu Actual R/o Plot No. 65 Road No. 3 Teej Nagar
       Sirsi Road Panchyawala Jaipur Raj.
                                                                  ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arun Singh Shekhawat For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sher Singh Mahla, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

Judgment / Order

19/08/2021

1. Petitioners have preferred this Revision Petition aggrieved by

order dated 18.08.2020 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2

Jhunjhunu, whereby Criminal Regular Appeal filed by Non-

petitioner No. 2 was allowed.

2. It is contended by counsel for the accused-petitioners that

the Court below has erred in allowing the application under section

(2 of 4) [CRLR-1024/2020]

391 Cr.P.C. and directing the trial Court to record additional

evidence with regard to the report of the Finger Print Bureau and

statement of Hari Singh, S.I. It is contended that in the

application filed under Section 391 Cr.P.C. respondent no. 2

wanted certain additional documents to be taken on record. A

limited prayer was made in the application pertaining to the

documents mentioned in the application. Court below while

dealing with the application came to the conclusion that the

documents referred in the application are not relevant for deciding

the appeal and refused to allow the application on this ground.

However, the Court suo moto directed for exhibiting the Finger

Print Bureau Report and for recording of the statement of Hari

Singh, S.I. It is contended that there was no prayer with regard to

the report of the Finger Print Bureau and also for recording the

statement of Hari Singh, S.I. and the Court has clearly erred in

allowing the application under Section 391 Cr.P.C.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the revision petition.

It is contended that matter pertains to forging of the gift deed.

The report of the Finger Print Bureau was on record, but the same

was not exhibited and the statement of Investigating Officer who

had recovered the documents was also not recorded. The gift deed

was recovered by Hari Singh, S.I. who was a witness but whose

statement was not recorded. It is argued that the Appellate court

under Section 391 Cr.P.C. is empowered to either record the

evidence itself or direct the Magistrate to record the same when

the Court considers the additional evidence necessary.

4. I have considered the contentions.

(3 of 4) [CRLR-1024/2020]

5. Taking note of the fact that the criminal case against the

appellant is with regard to forging of a gift deed. Report of the

Finger Print Bureau was available on record before the Trial Court,

it was the duty of the trial Court to see that the documents are

exhibited, as the report was essential to determine the question

whether there was forging of the gift deed. The appellate Court

has deemed it proper to direct the Trial Court to take evidence of

Hari Singh, S.I. who has recovered the gift deed, so as to have the

evidence with regard to gift deed and the Finger Print Bureau

report on record, for the Appellate Court to decide the case on the

basis of the additional evidence. Non-examination of important

witness and non-exhibition of the important documents like Report

of Finger Print Bureau goes to the root of the matter and the

additional evidence is indeed required for deciding the dispute in

question.

6. This Court is of the view that the power under Section 391

Cr.P.C. empowers the Appellate Court when it is dealing with an

appeal and it is of the view that additional evidence is necessary

either to record itself or direct it to be recorded by the Court

below. An application is not required to be filed for that purpose,

therefore, even when there was no prayer made in the application

under Section 391 Cr.P.C. with regard to document which was

already on record but argument was raised by counsel for the

respondent that the report has not been exhibited and important

witness has not been examined, the Court below was within its

right to pass the impugned order. I do not find any infirmity in the

impugned order passed by the Appellate Court, hence, no ground

(4 of 4) [CRLR-1024/2020]

is made out for entertaining the revision petition.

7. This Revision petition is accordingly, dismissed.

8. Stay Application stands disposed of.

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

NIKHIL KR. YADAV /21

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)