section 391 (1) of Cr.P.C. Additional evidecne in appeal aginst acquital under sec. 138 NIAct = The petitioner-Complainant filed Crl.A.No.84 of 2012 on the file of IV Addl. Sessions Judge, Karimnagar assailing the judgment of acquittal. He also filed Crl.M.P.No.113 of 2012 under section 391 (1) of Cr.P.C. to receive two documents dated 28.02.2004 and 09.08.2011 respectively as additional evidence.= Admittedly, both the documents are prior to the pronouncement of the judgment in C.C.No.1500 2008. No satisfactory explanation has been given for not producing the said documents before the trial Court. The learned Additional Sessions Judge considered the material brought on record in right perspective and proceeded to dismiss the application filed by the petitioner under Section 391 (1) of Cr.P.C. I do not see any illegality or irregularity in the order impugned in the revision warranting interference of this court in exercise of powers under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C


HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY


CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.104 of 2013

ORDER:-


This revision is directed against the order dated 08.11.2012 passed in Crl.M.P.No.113 of 2012 in Crl.A.No.84 of 2012 on the file of the IV Addl. Sessions Judge, Karimnagar whereby and whereunder the learned Addl. Sessions Judge dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 391 (1) of Cr.P.C. 
The petitioner is the complainant and the first respondent is the accused in C.C.No.1500 of 2008 on the file of the Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Huzurabad.  The first respondent was prosecuted for the offence under Section 138 r/w 142 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (for short “the Act”).  The learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Huzurabad, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, came to the conclusion that the petitioner failed to make out the offence under Section 138 of the Act and thereby proceeded to acquit the first respondent-accused, by judgment dated 16.04.2012.  
The petitioner-Complainant filed Crl.A.No.84 of 2012   on the file of IV Addl. Sessions Judge, Karimnagar assailing the judgment of acquittal.  He also filed Crl.M.P.No.113 of 2012 under section 391 (1) of Cr.P.C. to receive two documents dated 28.02.2004 and 09.08.2011 respectively as additional evidence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, on considering the material brought on record and hearing the counsel appearing for parties, came to the conclusion that the petitioner failed to offer any explanation  for not producing the same in the trial Court and thereby proceeded to dismiss the petition by order dated 08.11.2012.  Hence, this revision.
It is contended by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the first document dated 28.02.2004 is an undertaking whereas the second document is the judgment dated 09.08.2011 and therefore, they are required to be considered for proper adjudication of the appeal. 
Admittedly, both the documents are prior to the pronouncement of the judgment in C.C.No.1500 2008.  No satisfactory explanation has been given for not producing the said documents before the trial Court.  The learned Additional Sessions Judge considered the material brought on record in right perspective and proceeded to dismiss the application filed by the petitioner under Section 391 (1) of Cr.P.C.  I do not see any illegality or irregularity in the order impugned in the revision warranting interference of this court in exercise of powers under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C
Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. 


______________________________

JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY

23rd January, 2013
Vjl/gkv




Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515