ANSHU JAIN Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 15.03.2018 passed by Additional District Judge, Kotdwar District Garhwal, in Criminal Appeal No.25 of 2016, whereby the application filed by the revisionist under Section 391 of Cr.P.C. has been dismissed.

(2.) Factual matrix of the case are that the respondent no.2 filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act) against the revisionist in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kotdwar District Pauri Garhwal, which was registered as Criminal Complaint Case No.316 of 2013. The trial court, vide judgment and order dated 05.07.2016, convicted the revisionist under Section 138 of the Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and also directed him to deposit fine of Rs.6,00,000/-. Feeling aggrieved, the revisionist preferred appeal before the Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal being Criminal Appeal No.25 of 2016. During the pendency of appeal, the revisionist filed an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. on the ground that neither he has issued the cheque in question nor the said cheque bears his signatures. It was also stated that after his statements were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. before the trial court he tried to give evidence but the trial court rejected his application vide order dated 24.06.2016 thereby closing his opportunity to lead evidence. It was also stated that during the pendency of appeal, he enquired from the bank as to whether the signatures on the cheque bears his signatures, it was informed to him that the signatures in the cheque in question are different. He, thus, prayed that the specimen signature be obtained from the bank and be sent to the handwriting expert for verification. Subsequently, the revisionist moved another application and prayed to amend the Section of the application as Section 391 of Cr.P.C. instead of Section 311 of Cr.P.C. Additional District Judge, Kotdwar, Garhwal, acceded to the said request of the revisionist and decided to dispose of the application u/s 391 of Cr.P.C. and after hearing the parties and on perusal of papers on record, learned Judge, dismissed the application vide order dated 15.03.2018 with the observation that a written report was submitted by Arvind Kumar Jain on 25.08.2012 at P.S. Kotdwar stating that his bag has been lost somewhere wherein there were some important documents like passport, driving license, cheque book, pan card, etc. and there were also some cheques related to his son's account in Canara Bank but the applicant has not produced any documents along with the application so as to prove that actually his bag a lost on 25.08.2012.

(3.) Initially this Court has passed an order dated 10.10.2019 directing the trial court not to pronounce the judgment till the next date of listing. Thereafter, this Court appointed Mr. Aditya Singh, Advocate as amicus curiae to the assist the Court on the issue "as to whether an application of the convict/appellant is maintainable to adduce the additional evidence in an appeal?"