Dr. Subhash Chander Pasrija and Others vs State of Haryana

Rekha Mittal, J.—The present petition lays challenge to order dated 27.09.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, whereby an application filed by the petitioners (appellants before the trial Court) u/s 391 Cr.P.C. has been dismissed. The brief facts of this case are that Dr. Subhash Chander Pasrija and others accused in FIR No. 428 dated 08.11.2005, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC, registered at Police Station Central Faridabad faced trial before the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Faridabad, were convicted and sentenced under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120-B IPC except accused Akhtar Jaidi held guilty for offence u/s 419 IPC. However, one of the accused Tarun Aggarwal was declared as proclaimed offender. Dr. Subhash Chander Pasrija, his wife Dr. Neelam Bala and their son Saket filed Criminal Appeal No. 16/28.05.2008 challenging their conviction and sentence by the Court of Judicial Magistrate. A separate appeal has been preferred by their co-accused Akhtar Jaidi. During pendency of appeal, the appellants (petitioners herein) submitted an application for permission to lead evidence u/s 391 Cr.P.C. which was dismissed by the appellate Court after hearing counsel for the parties.

Counsel for the petitioners would contend that the impugned order is illegal and cannot sustain in the eyes of law. It is further submitted that a serious prejudice would be caused to the petitioners in case the application is not allowed and petitioner Dr. Subhash Chander Pasrija is not permitted to examine himself u/s 315 Cr.P.C. Dr. Subhash Chander Pasrija has knowledge of entire facts of the case which are required to be brought on record for just decision of the case and in the interest of justice.

Counsel for the State of Haryana, on the other hand, has seriously opposed the prayer of the petitioner by making submission that the application u/s 391 Cr.P.C. is nothing but an abuse and misuse of process of law and has been filed to delay decision of the appeal. It is further submitted that the petitioners are successful in achieving their object as the appeal filed in the year 2008 has not been decided till date.

I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the records.

Before adverting to submissions made by respective counsel, it is beneficial to refer to the provisions of Section 391 Cr.P.C.

Section 391 Cr.P.C. deals with power of appellate Court to take further evidence or direct it to be taken. A relevant extract from Section 391 Cr.P.C. is quoted hereinunder:-

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.

A perusal of Section 391(1) Cr.P.C. would make it manifest that appellate Court may take such evidence which it thinks to be necessary and it shall record its reasons for so doing. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that no such contention was raised by counsel for the petitioners as to how, examination of Dr. Subhash Chander Pasrija u/s 315 Cr.P.C. is necessary in the circumstances of the present case. Not only this, counsel for the petitioners failed to draw attention of this Court to any material which can be brought on record by Dr. Subhash Chander Pasrija as a witness and further how that material is necessary to enhance the cause of justice. It is pertinent to mention here that on perusal of application u/s 391 Cr.P.C., no meaningful averments can be found or even gathered. The application is nothing but a bundle of confusion. I do not find any error much less illegality in the order impugned as would call for interference in exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, finding no merit, the petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.