Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

- x - x -"

The above said order dated 02.06.2022, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh is being impugned in the present petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that impugned order dated 02.06.2022, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh is erroneous and illegal and the same has been passed without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. It is contended that the true test for the admissibility of additional evidence is whether the Appellate Court is able to pronounce the judgment of the material before it without taking into consideration the additional evidence sought to be adduced. It is 7 of 14 Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:017891 CRR-2215-2022 (O&M) -8- further submitted that the lower Appellate Court, has erred in dismissing the application under Section 391 Cr.P.C. for leading additional evidence as the petitioner, despite making the best efforts, could not get his Manager-Karan examined through the course of trial as he had left the employment of petitioner and it was only during the pendency of appeal that petitioner, through his friend, could trace out the whereabouts of the said Karan. Accordingly, it is prayed that the revision petition be allowed by setting aside impugned order dated 02.06.2022, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh and permit the petitioner to lead additional evidence under Section 391 Cr.P.C. 

                               11 of 14

                                                       Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:017891




CRR-2215-2022 (O&M)                                                            -12-

Keeping in view the above stated legal position, when the instant case is examined, it is observed that the petitioner has filed an application under Section 391 Cr.P.C. to examine one Karan, in his additional evidence in the appeal, who is stated to be the previous manager of petitioner (Sanjay Sharma) and in whose presence, it is claimed that the nephew of petitioner, namely Gaurav, had returned the balance amount of Rs.7,00,000/- in cash to the husband of respondent-claimant namely, Vivek Mehta. In the application under Section 391 Cr.P.C., the reason for not examining Karan, as a witness before the trial Court, was stated that he had left the job and the petitioner was neither in touch with him nor he had any contact number or address of said Karan and it was only one month ago that he gained knowledge of the residence of Karan from one of his friends. So far as the examination of Karan in additional evidence is concerned, it is apposite to refer to the statement of petitioner recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., which reads as under :-

Moreover, learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any exceptional circumstances so as to warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of its power and neither any irregularity has been pointed out, which necessitated the filing of application under Section 391 Cr.P.C. Apart from the above, had the position been the same as is being sought to be indicated in the application under Section 391 Cr.P.C., even in that eventuality, the petitioner had a fair opportunity to lead this evidence at the stage of his evidence. However, the said opportunity was not availed of by 13 of 14 Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:017891 CRR-2215-2022 (O&M) -14- the petitioner for the reasons best known to him.

Considering the totality of circumstances, it appears that the application under Section 391 Cr.P.C. has been filed only to elongate the appeal proceedings and such tactics cannot be blessed by this Court. Accordingly, no necessity has arisen to interfere with the impugned order dated 02.06.2022, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, wherein an application under Section 391 Cr.P.C. was dismissed. Thus, finding no merit in the present revision petition, the same is dismissed.