MAHFOOZ HUSAIN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revisionist has challenged the order dated 21.04.2011, passed by Sessions Judge, Champawat, in Criminal Appeal No. 24 of2010, whereby the application of the appellant/applicant moved before the appellate court for adducing additional evi ­dence, has been rejected.

(2.) BRIEF facts, of the case, are that the appellant/revisionist was an accused who stood the trial in respect of offences pun ­ishable under section 279 IPC, and under section 304A IPC, in which he was con ­victed by the trial court. His appeal is pend ­ing before the Sessions Judge. From the impugned order it appears that the prosecution adduced its evidence where after from the side of defence, the defence evi ­dence was adduced as such, the appellate court refused to allow the appellant to adduce further evidence at the appellate stage.

(3.) IN the above circumstances, this re ­vision is summarily dismissed with the ob ­servation that at the time of final hearing the appellate court shall consider the plea of the appellant relating to the fact whether the deceased was in a drunken state (at the time of the alleged accident) or not. (Stayapplication no. 459 of 2011, also stands dismissed).