JUGAL KISHORE Vs. ROSHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petition is directed against the order d t. 22-10-97 passed in an appeal against conviction, whereby the Addl. Sessions Judge rejected the application of the petitioner under Section 391, Cr. P.C. on 25-1-99 the petitioner filed an application for treating the revision petition as misc. petition which was allowed.

(2.) The relevant facts of the case are these. Jugal Kishore had issued a cheque for Rupees 71,000/- on 7-4-91 drawn on Punjab National Bank, Udaipur in favour of the complainant-non-petitioner Roshan Lal for repaying the debt. Roshan Lal presented the cheque to the Bank but it was dishonoured. The cheque was again presented but again it was dishonoured. Jugal Kishore after giving notice to the petitioner filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Indian Negotiable Instruments Act. After the trial was held, petitioner Jugal Kishore was convicted by the Magistrate vide judgment dt. 4-8-94. He preferred an appeal against the said judgment to the Court of Sessions which was transferred to the Additional Sessions Judge No. 3, Udaipur. There the petitioner made an application under Section 391, Cr. P.C. praying that the petitioner be allowed to file seven documents viz., copy of the civil suit filed by Roshan Lal (complainant), a copy of the written statement filed by the accused petitioner, copy of the civil suit filed by the complainant against Deepak Bharti, a copy of the written statement filed in that case, a copy of the statement of Roshan Lal in a civil suit referred to above, a copy of the agreement entered into between Roshan Lal and Deepak Bharti, a copy of the account prepared by Govind Ram, and a copy of the judgment in a case under Section 302, IPC in which Roshan Lal was convicted. In his reply, complainant Roshan Lal opposed the application. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, the Addl. Sessions Judge rejected the application of the petitioner-accused vide order dt. 22-10-97.

(3.) Mr. Shishodia contended that the documents referred to in the application of the petitioner are relevant to the just decision of the appeal preferred by him, and therefore, the Appellate Court ought to have allowed the documents.