BACHASPATI DAS Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. D. Das, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. K.K. Das, learned ASC for Opposite Party " State.

(2.) The Petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dtd. 11/10/2021 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Nimapara in Criminal Appeal No.7 of 2020 rejecting his prayer to adduce additional evidence under Sec. 391 Cr.P.C. The offences alleged are under Ss. 23 of the P.C. and P.N.D.T. Act, read with Rule 11(2) of the P.C. and P.N.D.T. Rules. The proposed evidence is for examination of one M. Venkatraman as a witness from whom the Ultrasound machine was allegedly purchased.

(3.) It is submitted by Mr. Das, learned counsel for the Petitioner that the examination of said witness is very much necessary since the defence case is that the machine was kept for demonstration purpose only. The proposed evidence is thus necessary which he could not adduce in course of trial.