NARENDER SINGH Vs. BHIM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 11.6.2019 passed by learned Sessions Judge Sirmour at Nahan in Criminal Appeal No. 93-CR.A/10 of 2018, titled Narender Singh Vs. Bhim Singh, preferred by petitioner against his conviction under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, whereby an application, filed on behalf of petitioner/accused under Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (herein after referred to as the " Cr.P.C ." in short), seeking permission to lead additional evidence in appeal, has been dismissed by the Appellate Court.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through record of the Courts below.

(3.) Impugned order has been assailed mainly on the ground that the petitioner has taken a specific defence plea during trial that impugned Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes cheque was not issued by him in favour of respondent and further that cheque in question does not bear his signatures and counsel for the cpetitioner, despite instructions of the petitioner, had failed to take steps to examine the official witness before the trial Court and further that examination of witnesses related to record is material to prove the innocence of the petitioner and is necessary for effective and proper adjudication of the case, as cheque in question was without consideration and could not have made basis for conviction. It is also contended by learned counsel for the petitioner/accused that cheque in question was procured by respondent fraudulently from his wife on the pretext that cheque is required be issued for a scheme formulated by respondent for purchase of goats. Therefore, in order to prove these facts, additional evidence proposed to be lead in appeal, is necessary for doing the complete justice.