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

23^rd January, 2013

Vjl/gkv