RAJENDRA PRASAD SWAMI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant misc. petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the order dated 13.6.2013 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Suratgarh, Distt. Sri Ganganagar rejecting the application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner in Appeal No. 8/2013. After having been convicted by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Suratgarh, Distt. Sri Ganganagar for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, the petitioner preferred the aforesaid application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. before the appellate Court claiming that he should be permitted to bring on record the details of the sale transactions of a house as admitted by the respondent No. 2.

(2.) Having heard and considered the arguments advanced at the bar and upon perusal of the orders passed by the learned Courts below, it is evidence that the petitioner had ample opportunity to bring all the facts which were referred to in his application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. on record during the course of trial. The petitioner failed to do so and thereafter the application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. was moved before the appellate Court. The same was rejected by the order dated 13.6.2013 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Suratgarh, Distt. Sri Ganganagar and rightly so.

(3.) In the opinion of this Court, the facts which were sought to be brought on record by way of application under Section 91 Cr.P.C., were very much available to the petitioner during trial and the petitioner was not prevented from bringing such facts on record due to reasons beyond his control. Thus, the application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the petitioner was rightly rejected by the learned appellate Court.