Narayan Lal Pandya vs M/S Mahaveer Air Products ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 8447 Raj

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 8447 Raj
Judgement Date : 7 March, 2025

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Narayan Lal Pandya vs M/S Mahaveer Air Products ... on 7 March, 2025

Author: Manoj Kumar Garg

Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg

[2025:RJ-JD:12983]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
             S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 320/2024

Narayan Lal Pandya S/o Shri Shankar Lal Pandya, Aged About 37
Years, R/o J-88, Azad Nagar, Bhilwara, Proprietor Mateshwari
Engineering And Products And Tools, Near Chhipa Hospital,
Kumbha Circle Road, Azad Nagar, Bhilwara.
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
M/s Mahaveer Air Products, G-339/d, Bhamshah Industrial Area,
Kallarwas, Udaipur Through Partner Sanjay Bamb S/o Shri Ajeet
Kumar Bamb, R/o 973, Gyannagar, Sector - 4, Hiranmagri,
Udaipur.
                                                                 ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Rajendra Charan
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP
                                Mr. Love Jain



           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

Judgment / Order

07/03/2025

The present revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C

has been filed against the order dated 05.12.2023 passed by

learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act Cases),

Udaipur whereby, the application preferred by the petitioner under

Section 391 read with Section 311 Cr.P.C. for adducing additional

evidence was dismissed.

Brief facts of the case are that the respondent lodged a

complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,

against the petitioner, whereupon a case came to be registered

against him before the learned Special Magistrate (N.I. Act

Cases) No.1, Udaipur. After due course of trial, the learned trial

[2025:RJ-JD:12983] (2 of 5) [CRLR-320/2024]

court convicted the petitioner for offence under Section 138 of N.I.

Act. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the court

of Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act Cases),

Udaipur being Appeal No. 108/2022. During the pendency of

criminal appeal, the petitioner filed an application under Section

391 Cr.P.C. for bringing on record the copy of Bill and copy of VAT

return etc. The learned appellate court after hearing both the

parties, dismissed the said application vide order dated

05.12.2023. Hence, this revision.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the appellate court

has committed grave error of law in dismissing the application

filed by the petitioner under Section 391 Cr.P.C inasmuch as the

complainant had not produced the copy of Bill so also copy of VAT

returns etc and these documents are vital for just decision of the

case. It is argued that the petitioner has raised question with

regard to authenticity of the complaint and same is required to be

examined. It is prayed that dismissal of the application under

Section 391 Cr.P.C to bring on record essential piece of evidence,

will result into grave injustice to the petitioner and therefore, the

same is liable to be allowed.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the

respondent supported the impugned order and argued that after

conclusion of trial, at the appellate stage, the petitioner is seeking

to produce the said documents only with an intention to delay the

matter. Therefore, the appellate court has rightly dismissed the

application filed under section 391 Crpc which does not call for any

interference from this Court.

[2025:RJ-JD:12983] (3 of 5) [CRLR-320/2024]

I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and

carefully gone through the documents on record.

At the outset it is relevant to discuss section 391 of Crpc

which is quoted herein below :-

"391. Appellate Court may take further evidence or direct it to be taken.

(1) In dealing with any appeal under this Chapter, the Appellate Court, if it thinks additional evidence to be necessary, shall record its reasons and may either take such evidence itself, or direct it to be taken by a Magistrate, or when the Appellate Court is a High Court, by a Court of Session or a Magistrate.

(2) When the additional evidence is taken by the Court of Session or the Magistrate, it or he shall certify such evidence to the Appellate Court, and such Court shall thereupon proceed to dispose of the appeal. (3) The accused or his pleader shall have the right to be present when the additional evidence is taken. (4) The taking of evidence under this section shall be subject to the provisions of Chapter XXIII, as if it were an inquiry."

The reading of Section 391 Crpc, so also proposition of

law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly leads to

form an opinion that the legislative intent in enacting Section

391 appears to be the empowerment of the appellate court to

see that justice is done between the parties and if the

appellate court finds that certain evidence is necessary in order

to enable it to give a correct and proper findings, it would be

justified in allowing further evidence under Section 391.

However, this power has to be exercised sparingly and in

exceptional cases where the court is satisfied that directing

[2025:RJ-JD:12983] (4 of 5) [CRLR-320/2024]

additional evidence would serve the interest of justice. In the

case in hand, the learned appellate Court has observed that

the dispute between the petitioner and respondent is with

regard to financial transaction and in this connection all the

documents have already been submitted. The petitioner has

failed to show as to how the copy of Bills sought to be brought

as evidence is essential to prove his innocence. Further the

VAT assessment returns filed by the respondent are irrelevant

for purpose of deciding the complaint filed by the respondent.

The trial court after taking into consideration the entire facts

and evidence, convicted the petitioner and now at the

appellate stage, the petitioner is seeking to adduce additional

evidence and again examine the complainant.

Recently the Hon'ble Apex Court while considering the object

of section 391 Crpc in the case of Ajitsinh Chehuji Rathod vs

State of Gujarat and Anr. (SLP(Crl.) No(s). 16641 of 2023)

dated 29.01.2024 has observed as under :-

"9. At the outset, we may note that the law is well- settled by a catena of judgments rendered by this Court that power to record additional evidence under Section 391 CrPC should only be exercised when the party making such request was prevented from presenting the evidence in the trial despite due diligence being exercised or that the facts giving rise to such prayer came to light at a later stage during pendency of the appeal and that non recording of such evidence may lead to failure of justice."

Thus, in order to exercise power contemplated under section

391 of Crpc, the appellate court must be satisfied that these

[2025:RJ-JD:12983] (5 of 5) [CRLR-320/2024]

documents came to light during pendency of the appeal. The court

should not only consider whether the accused had reasonable

opportunity of defending himself by adducing the proposed

additional evidence, the court should also consider the question

whether the additional evidence proposed to be adduced does

have any relevance or he was prevented from presenting the

evidence at the trial stage.

Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, this

court is of the opinion that the petitioner had filed the application