Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Ranjan Dutta, was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pune, for dishonour of a cheque issued to the complainant, Samridhi E-Seva Solution Pvt. Ltd. The cheque was for payment of computer hardware kits supplied by the complainant. The applicant filed an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, and during the pendency of the appeal, he filed an application under Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking permission to adduce additional evidence. The proposed evidence included a settlement agreement allegedly entered into between the parties after the trial, and subsequent correspondence showing that the complainant had accepted part payment and agreed to settle the matter. The Sessions Judge rejected the application on the ground that the applicant had not shown sufficient cause for not producing the evidence earlier and that the evidence was not necessary for a just decision. The applicant then filed a criminal revision application before the Bombay High Court. The High Court examined the scope of Section 391 CrPC and held that the appellate court has wide discretion to allow additional evidence if it is essential for a just decision, especially when the evidence relates to events after the trial that could affect the merits. The court noted that the settlement agreement and subsequent conduct of the parties were relevant to show that the complainant's claim might have been satisfied, which could impact the conviction. The High Court set aside the Sessions Judge's order and allowed the application, directing the appellate court to take the additional evidence on record and decide the appeal afresh. The court emphasized that the power under Section 391 should be exercised liberally to secure the ends of justice.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 391 - Additional Evidence in Appeal - Power of Appellate Court - The appellate court has wide discretion to permit additional evidence if it is necessary for a just decision, especially when the evidence relates to events occurring after the trial that affect the merits of the case. The court must consider whether the evidence is relevant and could not have been produced earlier despite due diligence. (Paras 10-15) B) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - Dishonour of Cheque - Defence of Settlement - Subsequent settlement between parties, even if not amounting to compounding, can be relevant to show that the complainant's claim is satisfied or that the accused had no dishonest intention. The appellate court should not reject such evidence solely on the ground that it was not raised earlier. (Paras 16-18) C) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 391 - Additional Evidence - Revisional Jurisdiction - The High Court in revision can interfere if the lower court's order is perverse or suffers from legal infirmity. In the instant case, the Sessions Judge's rejection of the application was set aside as it failed to consider the relevance of the proposed evidence. (Paras 19-22)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellate court erred in rejecting the application under Section 391 CrPC to adduce additional evidence, specifically a settlement agreement and subsequent conduct, which could have a bearing on the conviction under Section 138 NI Act.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the revision application, set aside the order of the Sessions Judge dated 28th June 2017, and directed the appellate court to take the additional evidence on record and decide the appeal afresh in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Section 391 CrPC
- Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act
- 1881
- Additional evidence in appeal
- Power of appellate court to take additional evidence
- Defence of settlement
- Compounding of offence
