BHUPINDER SINGH Vs. RAJ KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present petition under Sec. 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the accused-petitioner, who was convicted by the learned trial court under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short 'the Act') for dishonoring a cheque. He was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay compensation of the amount equivalent to the cheque amount. The petitioner, aggrieved by the conviction and order of sentence, filed an appeal, which is currently pending before the learned Appellate Court. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner sought permission to place additional evidence before the learned Appellate Court by filing an application under Sec. 391 of Cr.P.C., which was dismissed by the learned Appellate Court. Hence, the present revision before this Court.

(2.) The petitioner was convicted by the learned Magistrate under Sec. 138 of the Act for dishonoring a cheque. The trial court sentenced the petitioner to imprisonment and imposed a fine as stated above. Aggrieved by this conviction, the petitioner filed an appeal before the learned Sessions Court. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner filed an application under Sec. 391 Cr.P.C., seeking to adduce additional evidence. The learned Appellate Court dismissed the said application. Aggrieved with the same, the petitioner has knocked the doors of this Court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned lower Appellate Court had erred in dismissing the application. At the time of trial of complaint under Sec. 138 of the Act, the petitioner filed application dtd. 16/9/2023 before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Fatehgarh Sahib against respondent No.2 for committing fraud and the said application was pending for inquiry which was being conducted through the Investigating Officer. The petitioner wanted to produce the said record and the other documents which were not available at the time of adducing defence evidence in the trial Court. He further contended that the said documents were very much necessary for just and proper decision of the case, which fact has been ignored by the learned Appellate Court and has prayed for setting aside the impugned order.