Karan Singh vs Prerit Tiwari And Others

Pranay Verma, J

1] Heard on the question of admission.

2] This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred to as "CRPC") aggrieved by the order dated 19.1.2024 passed by the III Sessions Judge, District Indore in CRA.No.187/2023; whereby, the application filed by the petitioner under Section 391 of the CPRC, has been rejected.

3] In brief facts of the case are that against the petitioner a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,1881(hereinafter to be referred to as "Act of 1881") was registered on account of dishonor of cheque dated 14.8.2010 amounting to Rupees Twenty Lakhs.

4] In the aforesaid case, the petitioner has already been convicted vide judgment dated 29.4.2023, and being aggrieved an appeal has already preferred by the petitioner under Section 374 of the CRPC bearing Criminal Appeal No.187/2023. In the aforesaid appeal, an application under Section 391 of the CRPC was filed contending that at the time of preparing for the appeal perusal of the documents revealed that certain relevant documents could not be produced in evidence during the course of trial which included a contract letter dated 6.7.2010, another agreement dated 30.4.2010, undertaking dated 4.9.2010 and other documents of 2010 only. It was stated that the aforesaid documents could not be produced before the trial Court during the trial, and it would be necessary to bring these documents on record to arrive at just in proper finding, and only on account of inadvertence on the part of the petitioner, the documents could not be submitted. It was also stated that the accused is resident of village Nagan Tehsil Baijnath District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh which is around 1400 KM away from Indore, and could not remain in continuous contact with his counsel as to which documents would be necessary for his proper defence in the trial. Thus, it was submitted that the aforesaid documents being necessary may be allowed to bring on record, and evidence may be recorded in respect of those documents.

5] The learned Judge of the trial Court vide its order dated 19.1.2024 has rejected the same, on the ground that one such document sought to be produced dated 6.7.2010 is already proved as Exhibit P-3 in the trial, and so far as the other documents are concerned all the documents were within the knowledge of the petitioner, and the petitioner has also not stated as to how the outcome of the trial would be different, if the documents are proved in evidence. Thus, the application filed by the petitioner has been rejected.

6] Shri Amar Singh Rathore, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the learned judge of the trial Court has erred in not allowing the aforesaid application filed under Section 391 of the CPRC despite the fact that the documents were relevant and a brief description of the documents has also been given in each such paragraphs of the application. In such circumstances, no further pleadings are required.

7] Perused the record.

8] From the perusal of the record, it is apparent that the original criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 was filed in the year 2010 only as the cheque was issued on 14.8.2010 meaning thereby, it has taken around 13 years for the trial to come to an end, and despite dragging the trial for full 13 years stretch, the accused still wants some additional documents to be produced in evidence in the appeal which clearly shows that only intention of the petitioner/accused is to further drag the matter and the application apparently appears to have been filed with malafide intention which cannot be allowed.

9] In the considered opinion of this Court, the learned judge of the trial Court has rightly held that the documents were already in the knowledge of the accused, and he has also not disclosed as to how it would change the out come of the case which has taken 13 years to complete. In such circumstances, no case for interference is made out as no illegality or jurisdictional error appears to have been committed by the learned judge of the trial Court in passing the impugned order.

10] Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed