RAM KARAN Vs. VIJAY KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the order dtd. 10/2/2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Sec. 391 Cr.P.C. seeking permission to lead additional evidence in Criminal Appeal No. 434 of 2017 titled as "Ram Karan vs. Vijay Kumar" has been dismissed. The said appeal arises out of Criminal Complaint No. RBT-444 of 2017 instituted on 10/9/2013 under Ss. 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the aforesaid order on the ground that the learned Additional Sessions Judge wrongly declined the prayer of the petitioner for leading additional evidence in the pending appeal.

(2.) The petitioner/accused had moved an application under Sec. 391 Cr.P.C. read with Sec. 311 Cr.P.C. before the learned Lower Appellate Court seeking permission to lead additional evidence in the pending criminal appeal. In the said application, it was averred that the complaint under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act had been filed on the allegation that on 1/7/2013 the present petitioner had allegedly issued cheque No. 477171 dtd. 1/7/2013 in favour of the complainant, which was dishonoured on 16/7/2013 on account of insufficient funds, after which a legal notice dtd. 12/8/2013 was allegedly issued by the complainant. It was further stated in the application that the consistent defence of the petitioner from the very beginning had been that the cheque in question had never been issued to the complainant in discharge of any legally enforceable liability. Rather, it was contended that the petitioner had availed a loan from the District Primary Cooperative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Ltd., Radaur in the year 2008, and at the time of sanction and disbursement of the loan, the bank officials had obtained ten blank signed cheques from the petitioner as security, bearing cheque numbers 477171 to 477180, including the cheque in question. It was asserted that these cheques were given to the bank without date and without filling the particulars and were meant only as security for the loan. The petitioner further averred that the said defence had already been disclosed in the reply dtd. 7/9/2013 submitted by him to the complainant and the same was placed on record as Ex.C8 during the trial. It was also stated that the loan obtained from the bank had subsequently been repaid by the petitioner and his mother and the bank had issued a clearance certificate after repayment of the loan. The petitioner further pleaded that the DPCARD Bank, Radaur had itself earlier filed a complaint under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act bearing NIA No. 685 of 2013 against the petitioner with respect to another cheque of the same series, i.e., cheque No. 477175, and in that complaint the original cheque was placed on record before the Court at Jagadhri. It was further stated that prior to filing of that complaint, the bank had issued a notice dtd. 24/1/2013 to the petitioner, to which the petitioner had replied through his counsel on 8/2/2013, clearly mentioning that ten blank signed cheques of the same series had been given to the bank as security and seeking their return after repayment of the loan.

(3.) It was also averred that even earlier the bank had issued another notice dtd. 20/6/2012 regarding dishonour of cheque No. 477173, to which the petitioner had sent a reply dtd. 28/6/2012 through counsel reiterating the same defence that the blank signed cheques had been taken by the bank as security at the time of the loan. It was further stated that the petitioner had also issued a legal notice dtd. 22/6/2012 to the bank seeking return of the blank signed cheques after repayment of the loan amount. The petitioner asserted that the aforesaid documents and facts were essential and material for the just decision of the case, as they clearly established that the cheque in question formed part of the series of blank signed security cheques given to the bank and had not been issued to the complainant in discharge of any legal liability. It was further pleaded that these facts and documents could not be properly brought on record before the trial Court due to lack of proper communication between the petitioner and his previous counsel. On these premises, the petitioner prayed before the learned Lower Appellate Court that permission be granted to lead additional evidence so that the relevant documents could be brought on record for the fair and effective adjudication of the appeal.