Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Navneet vs Lrs Of Smt. Prem Devi … on 7 April, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:17818]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 256/2025
Navneet S/o Shri Shyam Sunder Atal, Aged About 41 Years, R/o
D/177, Sanjay Colony, Bhilwara.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Lrs Of Smt. Prem Devi, W/o Shri Pramod Kumar
Mansinghka.
1/1 Pramod Kumar S/o Shri Makhanlal Mansinghka, Aged
About 70 Years, R/o Bazar No.3, Bhilwara.
1/2 Nitigya S/o Shri Pramod Kumar, R/o Bazar No.3,
Bhilwara.
1/3 Varsha D/o Shri Pramod Kumar, R/o Bazar No.3,
Bhilwara.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Suresh Kumbhat
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gaurav Ranka
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
REPORTABLE 07/04/2025
The present revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C
has been filed against the order dated 07.12.2024 passed by
learned Additional Session Judge, Women Atrocities cases,
Bhilwara whereby, the application preferred by the petitioner
under Section 391 Cr.P.C. for adducing evidence was dismissed.
Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was convicted
and sentenced by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate No.2,
Bhilwara in Criminal Case No.1954/2016 whereby, the petitioner
convicted and sentence for offence under Section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act. Being aggrieved the petitioner filed
(Downloaded on 08/04/2025 at 10:37:02 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:17818] (2 of 7) [CRLR-256/2025]
an appeal which is pending consideration before learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara. During
pendency of the appeal, the petitioner preferred an application
under Section 391 Cr.P.C to record the statements of complainant
Pramod and his son Nitigya Mansinghka arising out of FIR No.
274/2013 so also the copy of FIR and challan, however, the
appellate court rejected the application vide order dated
07.12.2024. Hence, this revision petition.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the appellate court
has committed grave error of law in dismissing the application
filed by the petitioner under Section 391 Cr.P.C inasmuch as the
documents are vital for just decision of the case. It is argued that
the complainant had filed a case against the petitioner for offence
under Section 420 & 406 IPC in which the trial court had recorded
the statement of PW/1 Pramod Mansinghkha and Nitigya
Mansinghka and trial court had acquitted the petitioner. The
petitioner is seeking to produce the statement of these two
witnesses on record for just decision of the case, however, the
appellate court mechanically dismissed the said application. It is
prayed that dismissal of the application under Section 391 Cr.P.C
to bring on record essential piece of evidence, will result into
grave injustice to the petitioner and therefore, the same is liable
to be allowed. Learned counsel placed reliance on judgment of
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Brig. Sukhjeet Singh (Retd.)
MVC Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. reported in 2019(1) CJ (Cri.)
(SC) 137 and judgment of Division Bench Bench of this Court in
the case of Pankaj & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in
2019(2) CJ (Cri.) (Raj.) 1051.
(Downloaded on 08/04/2025 at 10:37:02 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:17818] (3 of 7) [CRLR-256/2025]
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supported the
impugned order and argued that after conclusion of trial, at the
appellate stage, the petitioner is seeking to produce the said
documents only with an intention to delay the matter. It is argued
that the petitioner had every opportunity to produce the evidence
at the time of trial before the learned Special Judicial Magistrate
(N.I Act) Cases No.2, Bhilwara, but the petitioner failed to do so,
nor did he file any application to bring the said evidence on record
subsequently and now at the appellate stage, the petitioner has
filed the application. Therefore, the appellate court has rightly
dismissed the application filed under section 391 Cr.P.C. which
does not call for any interference from this Court. Learned counsel
placed reliance on judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case
of Mitthulal and Anr. Vs. State of M.P. reported in 1975 3 SCC
529.
I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and
carefully gone through the documents on record.
At the outset it is relevant to discuss section 391 of Crpc
which is quoted herein below :-
” 391. Appellate Court may take further evidence
or direct it to be taken.- (1) In dealing with any appeal
under this Chapter, the Appellate Court, if it thinks
additional evidence to be necessary, shall record its reasons
and may either take such evidence itself, or direct it to be
taken by a Magistrate, or when the Appellate Court is a
High Court, by a Court of Session or a Magistrate.
(2) When the additional evidence is taken by the Court of
Session or the Magistrate, it or he shall certify such
evidence to the Appellate Court, and such Court shall
thereupon proceed to dispose of the appeal.
(Downloaded on 08/04/2025 at 10:37:02 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:17818] (4 of 7) [CRLR-256/2025]
(3) The accused or his pleader shall have the right to be
present when the additional evidence is taken.
(4) The taking of evidence under this section shall be
subject to the provisions of Chapter XXIII, as if it were an
inquiry.”
Section 391 of the Criminal Procedure Code constitutes a
pivotal legal provision that confers upon appellate courts the
authority to admit additional evidence when deemed
indispensable for the proper administration of justice. This
provision ensures that in circumstances where critical evidence
has been inadvertently omitted or overlooked at the trial stage,
the appellate court is empowered to remedy such omissions to
avert any miscarriage of justice. However, the exercise of this
power must be approached with the utmost caution and
circumspection, taking into account the specific facts and
nuances of each case. Judicial precedents consistently
underscore that, while the discretion conferred under Section
391 is expansive, it must not be exercised in an arbitrary or
capricious manner. The overarching objective of this provision
is to facilitate the just and fair adjudication of matters, rather
than to unduly protract or complicate the trial process. The
introduction of additional evidence should be considered solely
in instances where it is indispensable for the fair and equitable
determination of the case at hand, and where such evidence
was either not available or could not have been adduced during
the original trial, despite the exercise of due diligence by the
parties involved.
Furthermore, it is imperative to recognize that the
exercise of this power under Section 391 must not be
(Downloaded on 08/04/2025 at 10:37:02 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:17818] (5 of 7) [CRLR-256/2025]
construed as a means to rectify deficiencies in the trial
proceedings or to address issues that could have been rectified
during the trial phase. The appellate court is duty-bound to
refrain from employing this provision to reopen matters that
are speculative or inconsequential, or to unduly delay the
resolution of the case, as such actions would subvert the
foundational principle of timely justice. Accordingly, while the
discretion vested under Section 391 is broad, its exercise must
be grounded in a commitment to the pursuit of truth, fairness,
and judicial economy, ensuring that it is not misused to
unnecessarily extend or complicate the proceedings.
In the present case, a complaint was previously filed by
the complainant against the petitioner for offences under
Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). In this
regard, the statements of Prosecution Witness (PW/1) Pramod
Mansinghka and Nitigya Mansinghka (PW/2) were recorded,
and the trial court subsequently acquitted the petitioner. The
petitioner now seeks to introduce the statements of these two
witnesses on record, as they are deemed relevant to the just
adjudication of the case. However, the application was
dismissed by the appellate court, which primarily relied upon
the testimony of Pramod Mansinghka, who made a crucial
admission: neither he nor his wife had any financial obligations
towards the petitioner, Navneet, subsequent to 24.03.2012.
This acknowledgment not only casts doubt on the veracity of
the allegations but also reveals the inherent weakness of these
claims, as they are unsupported by sufficient evidence.
(Downloaded on 08/04/2025 at 10:37:02 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:17818] (6 of 7) [CRLR-256/2025]
In light of the foregoing, and without delving into the
substantive merits of the case, it is reasonable to assert that
the application warrants consideration under Section 391 CrPC.
Allowing the introduction of this evidence would serve the
interests of hustice, ensuring that all relevant and material
facts are comprehensively examined prior to the rendering of a
final judgment. Such an approach would not only safeguard
the appellant’s right to a fair hearing but also enable the court
to render a just and informed decision, based on a
comprehensive evaluation of all the facts and evidence
available.
So far as the case of Mitthulal and Anr. (Supra) cited
by the respondent, it is imperative to note that the decision to
grant or deny an application under Section 391 of the Criminal
Procedure Code is contingent upon the specific facts and
circumstances inherent to each individual case. The judiciary
possesses discretionary authority to evaluate such
applications, and this discretion is grounded in principles of
justice and fairness. The rationale behind this discretion lies in
the recognition of the unique nature of each case, which may
involve varying degrees of complexity, urgency, and the
interplay of rights and responsibilities. The court must weigh
the merits of the application against the backdrop of the legal
framework and the broader principles governing criminal
procedure.
Therefore, the revision petition is partly allowed. The
impugned order dated 07.12.2024 passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Act cases,
(Downloaded on 08/04/2025 at 10:37:02 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:17818] (7 of 7) [CRLR-256/2025]
Bhilwara is quashed and petitioner is permitted to produce the
statement of PW/1 Pramod Mansinghkha and PW/2 Nitigya
Mansinghka and the appellate court is directed to take the
same on record. However, no other document/evidence shall
be permitted on behalf of petitioner by the appellate court. The
appellate court is directed to decide the appeal expeditiously,
in accordance with law.
Stay petition is also disposed of.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
139-BJSH/-
(Downloaded on 08/04/2025 at 10:37:02 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_1]
Source link