Gujarat High Court
Devangbhai Harshadbhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat & on 4 March, 2016
Author: A.G.Uraizee
Bench: A.G.Uraizee
R/CR.RA/107/2016 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY
SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 107 of 2016
==========================================================
DEVANGBHAI HARSHADBHAI PATEL....Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR P P MAJMUDAR, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. N. J SHAH ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.G.URAIZEE
Date : 04/03/2016
ORAL ORDER
This Revision Application is filed under section 397 read with section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the Code") to challenge the order dated 15th January 2016 passed by learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara, below Exh. 16 in Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 2014 whereby the application preferred by the applicant under section 311 and 291 of the Code to produce additional evidence at the appellate stage or in the alternative remand the matter to the trial court to record the additional evidence, came to be rejected.
Page 1 of 4
HC-NIC Page 1 of 4 Created On Mon Mar 14 00:11:56 IST 2016
R/CR.RA/107/2016 ORDER
2. I have heard Mr. P.P Majmudar learned advocate for the applicant and Mr. N.J Shah learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent no.1 State
3. Learned advocate for the applicant contends that exh. 23 letter is not proved as per the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act and that the applicant has stated in the further statement that this letter was taken by the bank under pressure. He further submits that letter dated 19th March 2012 which was produced by a separate list at the time of further statement of the applicant under section 313 of the Code and the applicant wants to put some question to respondent no.2 with regard to the said letter. In support of his contention he has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Gautambhai Bababhai @ Shantibhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. 2012(2) 1073 and in the case of Jayanti Parshottam Machhi @ Jayanti Parshottam Tandel Vs State of Gujarat & Anr. 2015(3) GLR 1978 and in the decision of Rajendra Prasad Vs Narcotic Cell, AIR 1999 (40) SC 496, and in State(NCT of Delhi) Vs Shiv Kumar Yadav and Anr. (2016) SCC 402 and in the case of Shailendra Kumar Vs. State of Bihar 2001(1) GLHEL SX Page 2 of 4 HC-NIC Page 2 of 4 Created On Mon Mar 14 00:11:56 IST 2016 R/CR.RA/107/2016 ORDER 25937 and has urged that the present application requires consideration.
4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor relied upon the recent decision of Supreme Court in the case of State (NCT of Delhi) vs Shiv Kumar Yadav and anr. (2016)2 SCC 402, and submitted that the Revision Application does not require consideration.
5. The applicant preferred Exh. 16 application under section 311 and Section 391 of the Code at the interlocutory stage during the pendency of Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 2014 in the Lower Court. I am of the view that instead of going into the details and examining the arguments canvassed by Mr. P.P Majmudar, learned advocate for the applicant at this stage ends of justice would be served if the right of the applicant is reserved to agitate the very issue of production of additional evidence under section 311 and Section 391 of the Code at the appellate stage at the time of final hearing of the appeal with liberty in favour of the applicant to agitate the issue of production of additional evidence under section 311 and section 391 of the Code at the appellate stage at the time of final hearing of the Appeal. If such a contention is raised by the applicant , the lower Judge Page 3 of 4 HC-NIC Page 3 of 4 Created On Mon Mar 14 00:11:56 IST 2016 R/CR.RA/107/2016 ORDER shall consider the same on merits.
6. In view of the above opinion expressed by this Court, learned advocate Mr. P.P Majmudar for the applicant does not press this Revision Application. Revision Application stands disposed of as not pressed.
7. It is clarified that this Court has not entered into the merits of the case and if the applicant raises the issue of production of additional evidence at a Appellate stage at the time of final hearing of the Revision Application, the Lower Appellate Court shall decide the issue independently on merits without being influenced by this order or the order impugned in the present Revision Application.
(A.G.URAIZEE,J) MARY Page 4 of 4 HC-NIC Page 4 of 4 Created On Mon Mar 14 00:11:56 IST 2016