Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sri J. Ramesh, filed a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging an order dated 20-09-2024 passed by the LIX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge at Bengaluru in Crl.A. No.149/2024. The impugned order rejected the petitioner's application under Section 391(1) Cr.P.C. seeking to produce additional evidence (bank statements) in an appeal against conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The petitioner and the respondent-company had a transaction, and the petitioner issued cheques which were dishonoured, leading to the complaint. The petitioner was convicted by the trial court and appealed. During the appeal, the petitioner sought to produce bank statements to support his defence. The appellate court rejected the application. The High Court heard both sides and reserved orders on 07.01.2025, pronouncing on 07.03.2025. The court held that the appellate court's rejection was erroneous as the additional evidence was necessary for a fair opportunity and the denial could prejudice the appellant. The High Court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned order, and directed the appellate court to permit the petitioner to produce the bank statements and then decide the appeal afresh.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Additional Evidence in Appeal - Section 391(1) Cr.P.C. - Fair Opportunity - The appellate court rejected the application for additional evidence without considering the necessity for fair opportunity - Held that the rejection was erroneous as the evidence sought (bank statements) was relevant to the defence and its denial could prejudice the appellant (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellate court erred in rejecting the application under Section 391(1) Cr.P.C. for production of additional evidence (bank statements) in an appeal against conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the petition, set aside the order dated 20-09-2024, and directed the appellate court to permit the petitioner to produce the bank statements and then decide the appeal afresh.
Law Points
- Section 391(1) Cr.P.C.
- additional evidence in appeal
- fair opportunity
- cheque dishonour
- Negotiable Instruments Act
- 1881
- Section 138
Case Details
2025 LawText (KAR) (03) 8
Criminal Petition No.12045 of 2024
Sri B. Siddeshwara (for petitioner), Sri Sandesh J. Chouta (senior counsel for respondent)
M/s. Lakshmi Precious Jewellery Pvt. Ltd.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging rejection of application under Section 391(1) Cr.P.C. for additional evidence in appeal against conviction under Section 138 NI Act.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of order dated 20-09-2024 rejecting his application under Section 391(1) Cr.P.C. and direction to allow the application.
Filing Reason
The petitioner's application for additional evidence (bank statements) in appeal was rejected by the appellate court.
Previous Decisions
The trial court convicted the petitioner under Section 138 NI Act. The petitioner appealed (Crl.A. No.149/2024). The appellate court rejected the application under Section 391(1) Cr.P.C. on 20-09-2024.
Issues
Whether the appellate court erred in rejecting the application under Section 391(1) Cr.P.C. for production of additional evidence.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the bank statements were necessary for his defence and the rejection denied him fair opportunity.
Respondent opposed the application, but the High Court found the rejection erroneous.
Ratio Decidendi
The appellate court's rejection of the application under Section 391(1) Cr.P.C. was erroneous as the additional evidence was relevant and necessary for a fair opportunity to the appellant; denial could prejudice the appellant.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 20-09-2024, by which the concerned Court rejects the application filed by the petitioner under Section 391(1) of the Cr.P.C.
Procedural History
The petitioner was convicted under Section 138 NI Act by the trial court. He appealed to the LIX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge at Bengaluru (Crl.A. No.149/2024). During appeal, he filed an application under Section 391(1) Cr.P.C. for additional evidence, which was rejected on 20-09-2024. He then filed this criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.): Section 391(1), Section 482
- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: Section 138
