MOHD ZAKIRUDDIN Vs. SHOWID NISAR KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. aggrieved by the order, dated 28.11.2019 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1664 of 2019 in Crl.A.No.787 of 2016 on the file of the II-Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, wherein and whereunder an application filed under Section 391 of Cr.P.C., to take further evidence or direct it to be taken before the trial Court and to mark certain documents as exhibits in favour of the revision petitioner/accused, was rejected.

(2.) The facts in issue are as under:

(3.) Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner/accused would submit that the 1st respondent/complainant had suppressed the material fact that he is a stranger to the entire transaction and there is no privity of contract between the revision petitioner/accused and the 1st respondent/ complainant and that the 1st respondent/ complainant had filled the blank cheque, which was issued by the revision petitioner/accused in favour of his son towards security, which constitutes a clear breach of trust. It is also stated that the appellate Court is having unfettered powers to allow the application under Section 391 of Cr.P.C. for additional evidence, but the appellate Court dismissed the same by making an observation that the additional evidence application cannot be allowed because the copy of plaint and written statement in O.S.No.1149 of 2014 on the file of the X-Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, is not necessary to adjudicate Crl.A.No.787 of 2016. The appellate Court failed to appreciate the blanket denial made by the 1st respondent/complainant stating that he is not having knowledge about filing of O.S.No.1149 of 2014, though the Counsels appearing on his behalf in criminal proceedings and on behalf of his son in civil proceedings is one and the same. It is further stated that the appellate Court should have allowed the application filed under Section 391 of Cr.P.C. in the light of the judgment reported in Brig Sukhjeet Singh MVC v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, 2019 LawSuit(SC) 72 and the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Jayanti Parshottam Machhi @ Jayanti Parchottam Tandel v. State of Gujarat and another, 2015 4 Crimes(HC) 441 (Guj.) wherein the scope of Section 391 of Cr.P.C. has been dealt with and in the said two decisions, the documents sought to be received at appellate stage were held to be relevant and material to decide the appeals and accordingly they were ordered to be received.