The High Court · 2025

2. State of Telangana, Rep by its P.P. High court of Telangana, Hyderabad. ( The Respondent No.2 is formal party ) ...RESPONDENT Petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. praying that in the circumstances stated in the l\rlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the lmpugned Order Dt.25l7l2025 passed by the lll Addl. District Judge, L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, Crl.M.P.No. 20 of 2023 in Crl.A.No. 41 of 2017. l.A. NO: 1 OF 202s Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in Crl.A.No. 41 of 2017, on the file of the lll Addl. District Judge, L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing I Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the argume. Subramanyam ,Ad\./ocate for the Petitioner and Sri A. Il Counsel) Advocate representing Sri Ch. Venkateshrv I Respondent No- 1,and the Public Prosecutor (TG) on behe I No.2 re Memorandum of s of Sri V. Venkata rvinder Reddy (Sr. a Reddy for the of the Respondent The Court made the following; ORDER r t I I THE HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.11026 of 2025 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-appellant- accused seeking to quash the order daled 25.07.2025 passed in Crl lV.P. No.20 of 2023 in Crl A. No.41 of 2011 by the Ill Additional District Judge, L.B. Nagar, R.R. District, filed under Section 391 Cr.P.C., wherein the said petition was dismissed

2. Heard lVlr. V. Venkata Subramanyam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A Ravinder Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri Ch. Venkateshwara Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent No.1

3. The case of the petitioners is that the de facto complainant has filed a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable lnstruments Act (for short 'Nl Act') before the trial court against the petitioners herein and the trial court has passed judgment of conviction against the petitioner without going into the material placed on record and that aggrieved by the said judgment, an appeal is filed before the appellate Court and the said apoeal is pending vide Crl.A. No.41 of 2017 on the file of lll Additional District Judge. tn the said appeal, I i 2 C.l.P. No.11O26 ot 2O25 'v the petitioners have preferred an application rrrrr er Section 391 Cr.P C. praying the court to receive certain ari j .ional evidence. The said application was dismissed. lt is their furrl 3r case that the petitioner No 1 has verified the account books o{ heir firm for the years from 2012 lo 20'16 and then she noticed re records and cheque books which were maintained by her husLi nd with his own hand-writing and on verification, she could notice t re cheque book containing the subject cheques was missinq lnd also after verificatron of the statement of account, she canre o know that the respondent No 1 used two cheques and excep : the said two cheques no other cheque in the cheque book was rtilized and that the same was in his custody. Thus, the pet t cners filed the application under Section 391 Cr.P.C., before the I lpellate court to receive the said documents as additional eviden{) , but the same application was dismissed by the appellate court. I ggrieved by the said dismissal order, the present criminal petition is iled. 4 Learned counsel for the petitioners has sL cmitted that the order passed by the appellate court is without any rr:rit and that the petitioners wants to put forth these documen:r as additional evidence, for which the appellate court has to z I cw the petition under Section 391 Cr.P.C., but the same was ci;missed by the ,,.||, J EfD,J CrlP. No.11026of 2025 appellate court. He further submitted that documents which the petltioners want to file as additional evidence are very crucial documents and that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent No.1 if they are received as additional evidence. Hence, he prayed this Court to set aside the orders passed by the appellate court and allow the petittoners to adduce the additional evidence

5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has submitted that the CC pertains to the year 2016 and when the judgment of conviction was rendered by the trial court in the year 201 7 against the petitioners, they have preferred an appeal tn 2011 and the matter is still kept pending due to the dilatory tactics played by the petitioners herein. He further submitted that the petitioners are due to pay legally enforceable debt to the respondent No.1 herein, but she is evading the same, just by playing dilatory tactics and the present application is filed in 2025 and they want to further drag on the matter. He further submitted that there is no substance in the contention of the petitioners and that all the documents are already on record and the prayer made in the application filed under Section 391 Cr.P.C., is not tenable because the said section envisages that the petition can be filed only in certain circumstances which are not l I 4 ETD.J Ctl.P. No 11026 ot 2025 made out by the petitioners herein. He, th: efore. prayed to dismiss the petition

6. Perused the record

7. The petitioners herein are the appellant; n Crl A. No 41 of 2017 They intend to frre certain documents as z ( ditionai evidence and the application under section 391 cr p c. ,;.i s fired before the appellate court. For the sake of reference, Sect < n 39.1 Cr. p. C. is extracted hereunder: "391. Appellate Court may take further evidencc c .direct it to be taken. (1) ln dealing with any appeal under ths ;hapier. the Appellate Court if it thinks additional evidence ic :)( necessary, shall record its reasons and may erther take such e,, lence itself. or drrect ll to be taken by a Magistrate or when l: Appellate Court is a HJgh Court by a Court of Session or a ivla I ;trate (2) When the additional evidence ts taken b, Session cr the l\4agrstrate, it or he shall certify suc;t the Aopellate Court and such Cou( shall thereuprr drspose of the appeal. p roceed to he Couft of -.,rrdence to (3) The accused or his pleader shall have t r frght to be present v,,hen the addrtional evidence is taken (4) ,l I taking of evidence under this section shall be subject to the 3 cvisions of Chapter XXlll, as rf it were an inquiry.,, B The said section envisages that the ad: tional evidence can be adduced before the appellate court in certai- crrcumstances. "/ti ! * ..,.' Y I I I : ) EfD,J cn.P- No,1l0zo or 2015

9. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners intend to file certain documents and that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent No 1 if the same are received as additional evidence and a fair chance has to be given to the petitioners, but the appellate court has dismissed the said application

10. A perusal of the impugned order discloses that the appellate court has relied upon a decision in Ashok Tshering Bhutia v. State of Sikkiml, wherein it was held that if the appellate court considers certain evidence is necessary and is unable to give a correct finding then only it would be justified in taking additional evidence under this section, but, the additional evidence does not mean to fill up the gap in prosecution's case and it can be taken in exceptional circumstances to remove an irregularity where the circumstances so warrant in public interest. Relying upon the said decision, the appellate court has dismissed the petition. lt was further observed that it is only the delay tactics adopted by the accused. ' 1zo't t 1+ scc +oz , l I 6 Crl.P. No.11026 ol2A25 '': '1 1. ln the present case, the alleged docun.rr nts that are to be filed are also discussed by the appellate court tl- i t the two ledgers sought for production are alleged to have been ;;ized by the Civil Supplies Department and that if at all the said leoc 3rs are oroduced at this juncture and even if they show the I-; ndwriting of the husband of the accused, still that is not going tr> infer anything to say that the complainant was in the custodr, of the cheques pertaining the accused. The appellate court furtf :r observed that even in such circumstances, it cannot be held thrr the complainant has unlawfully gained the custody of the tvrr cheques. The appellate court ought not to have assumed the thir 3s and drawn an adverse inference as against the documents that are proposed to be received in er,,idence.

12. The learned counsel for the petitioners has relred upon the decision in Ajitsinh Chehuji Rathod v. Stat: of Gujarat and another2, wherein it was held that power to r:cord additional evidence under Section 391 Cr.p.C. should only be exercised when the party making such request was prevented frc r I presenting the evidence in the trial despite due diligence being r xercised or that the facF-giving rise to sucli prayer came to lighi at a later stage - (2024) 4 ScC 453 I : ; t i I I l 1 i i ] i i I ! I i 1 1 ETD,J C.l.P. No-l1026 o12025 during pendency of the appeal and that non-recording of such evidence may lead to failure of justice

13. He further relied on the decision in Brig. Sukhjeet Singh (Retd) MVC v. TATE of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.3, wherein it was held that. "14.Power to take additional evidence under Section 391 is, thus with an object to appropriately decide the appeal by the Appellate Court to secuTe ends of justice The scope and ambrt of Sectlon 391 Cr.P.C. has come up for consideration before this Court in Rajeswar Prasad Misra v. State of West Bengal [AIR 1965 SC 1887]. Justice Hidayatullah, speaking for the Bench held that a wide discretion is conferred on the Appellate Courts and the addrtional evidence may be necessary lor a variety of reasons. He held that additional evidence must be necessary not because it would be impossible to pronounce judgment but because there would be failure of justice without it. " \ I

14. Thus, in view of the above cited decisions and in the light of the above held discussion, the petition needs to be allowed by setting aside the impugned order of the appellate court '1 5. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed setting aside the order daled 25.07.2025 passed in Crl.M.P. No.20 of 2023 in Crl.A. No 41 of 2017 by the lll Additional District Judge, L.B. Nagar, 3 AIR Ontine 2o'19 SC 2579 8 C.].P. Na.11026 or 2ors :: R.R. District and the petition filed by the petitior er under Section 391 Cr.P.C , stands allov,red and the petitioners are permitted to adduce additronal evidence. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, sh a I stand closed SD/- U. SUDHA ASSI ;TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, I

1. The Ill Addl. District Judge, L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy Dir trict. 2. One CC ro SRt V VENkATA sua"RAiMeNVArrrr nduoc, e [opUC] 3 One CC to SRl. CH VENKATESHWARA REDDY nOvoc, e'peUEl 4. Twc CCs to PUBLTC PROSECUTOR, High Court for the iraie oii6trngrnu 5. Two CD Copies at Hyderabad [OU Il PK/Sa HIGH COURT DATED:1811112025 CRLP.No.11026 ol 2025 t''. t'.) t- \, ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION \a I i ! I i I I I I I I i i I I I I I I l I { I I t E I I I ( I E E t : l : i I : i I t trC$ ruT ,i t' ".;.2 t "a.-- '-\. 7,-, - -c,' -.--' -