Case Note & Summary
The petitioner filed a criminal writ petition challenging two orders of the Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar that allowed the accused to produce documents in a criminal appeal against conviction -- The petitioner argued that the accused had not specifically prayed for additional evidence under Section 391 CrPC and that allowing document production prejudiced the complainant -- The respondent contended that the documents were necessary to substantiate the defense that the transaction involved an unenforceable hand-loan -- The High Court examined the impugned orders and found that the appellate court had properly applied its mind, recorded reasons, and exercised discretion under Section 391 CrPC -- The court held that no prejudice was caused to the complainant since the relevancy of documents would be decided during final appeal hearing -- The petition was dismissed with directions to expedite the appeal decision
Headnote
The High Court dismissed a criminal writ petition challenging orders dated 20.12.2023 and 19.3.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar in Criminal Appeal No. 39 of 2018 -- The petitioner-complainant sought quashing of orders allowing the accused-respondent to produce documents below Exhibits 38 and 41 -- The court held that the appellate court properly exercised discretion under Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) by applying its mind and recording reasons -- The documents were deemed necessary for deciding the appeal -- No prejudice was caused to the complainant as the relevancy would be decided during final appeal adjudication -- The petition was dismissed with directions to expedite the appeal proceedings
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellate court's orders allowing the accused to produce documents under Section 391 of CrPC were justified and whether they caused prejudice to the complainant
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the criminal writ petition -- The impugned orders dated 20.12.2023 and 19.3.2024 were upheld -- The appellate court was directed to expedite the hearing of Criminal Appeal No. 39 of 2018 and decide it within six months
Law Points
- Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
- 1973 (CrPC) grants appellate courts discretionary power to take additional evidence if deemed necessary for deciding the appeal -- The appellate court must apply its mind and record reasons for allowing such production -- The purpose is to prevent failure of justice and ensure proper adjudication -- The court's discretion should not be interfered with unless exercised arbitrarily or causing prejudice -- Production of documents does not automatically equate to admission as evidence without proper scrutiny
Case Details
2026 LawText (BOM) (02) 148
Criminal Writ Petition No. 1006 of 2024
Mr. Mahesh S. Deshmukh, Mr. Zafar M. Pathan
Ramdas S/o. Madhavrao Korde
Shrikant S/o. Sudhakar Dahale
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal writ petition challenging appellate court orders in a criminal appeal against conviction
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of orders dated 20.12.2023 and 19.3.2024 allowing accused to produce documents
Filing Reason
Petitioner alleged that appellate court improperly allowed document production under Section 391 CrPC without specific prayer for additional evidence, causing prejudice
Previous Decisions
Trial court convicted respondent for cheque dishonor -- Appellate court allowed document production through impugned orders -- High Court granted stay on proceedings on 24.6.2024
Issues
Whether the appellate court properly exercised discretion under Section 391 CrPC in allowing document production
Whether the impugned orders caused prejudice to the complainant requiring interference
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that accused did not specifically pray for additional evidence under Section 391 CrPC -- Appellate court's observation about treating documents as additional evidence was uncalled for -- Accused had opportunity to produce documents during trial but failed without justification
Respondent argued that documents were necessary to substantiate defense that transaction involved unenforceable hand-loan -- Appellate court properly applied mind and recorded reasons -- No prejudice caused as relevancy would be decided during final appeal
Ratio Decidendi
Appellate courts have discretionary power under Section 391 CrPC to allow additional evidence if necessary for proper adjudication -- The court must apply its mind and record reasons -- Interference is warranted only if discretion is exercised arbitrarily or causes prejudice -- Production of documents does not automatically prejudice the opposite party if relevancy is reserved for final decision
Judgment Excerpts
The learned Sessions Judge has applied its mind to the application below Exh.38 filed by the accused and relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court...has held that the documents which are sought to be relied upon by the accused are necessary for deciding the appeal
The objection of the complainant that the appellant did not examine the concerned persons relating to those documents before the learned trial court does not survive, keeping reserved the merits of the relevancy of such documents to be decided at the time of final decision of the appeal
Procedural History
Trial court convicted respondent for cheque dishonor -- Respondent filed Criminal Appeal No. 39 of 2018 -- Appellate court allowed document production through orders dated 20.12.2023 and 19.3.2024 -- Petitioner filed criminal writ petition challenging these orders -- High Court granted stay on 24.6.2024 -- Petition heard and dismissed on 25.2.2026
Acts & Sections
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 391
