PETITIONER Vs. RESPONDENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant in Crl.A.(MD) No.245 of 2009 is the petitioner herein. The present petition has been filed praying for an order under section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for reception of additional evidence to be adduced by the petitioner in the criminal appeal.

(2.) THE petitioner herein, along with another person, was prosecuted before the trial court in C.C.No.2 of 2001 on the file of Special Judge for CBI Cases for alleged offences punishable under sections 120-B r/w 420, 477-A, 409, 201, 467, 467 r/w 471, 468 r/w 471 and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988, 409, 420, 201, 477, 467, 467 r/w 471, 468, 468 r/w 471 and an offence under section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and also for the substantive offences thereof. The petitioner herein figured as the first accused in the said case before the trial court. Along with the petitioner, one V.K.Venkatesh was prosecuted for 120-B r/w 420, 477-A, 409, 201, 467, 467 r/w 471, 468 r/w 471 and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988, 420, 477, 468 IPC and section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. At the conclusion of trial, the learned trial judge chose to acquit the said Venkatesh (A2) and convict the petitioner for the substantive offences alone and not for the criminal conspiracy under section 120-B. The sentence of imprisonment, fine and default sentence imposed on him for various offences are as listed below:

(3.) THE respondent/State in the counter filed, has contended that the petitioner did have ample opportunities to produce before the trial court itself the documents, that are now sought to be adduced as additional evidence; that despite the availability of such opportunities, he did not choose to lead such evidence and has approached this court at the appellate stage during the pendency of the appeal with the present petition seeking permission to adduce additional evidence and that hence the present petition should be dismissed. The respondent has also stated that the petitioner is bent upon protracting the case as long as possible in so far as he has chosen to file a criminal original petition No.4338/2010 praying for further investigation of the case. In short, the contention of the respondent as found in the averments made in the counter is that, the petitioner by seeking permission to lead additional evidence wants to fill up the lacuna and pluck the loop hole, which should not be allowed. It is the further contention of the respondent/state that the documents now sought to be produced as additional evidence do not relate to the facts of the case and that the petitioner having chosen to produce more than 500 documents during trial, could have produced these documents also and the present attempt made by the petitioner is nothing but to fill up the lacuna.