LOKESH T N v. K SHIVANNA

(BY SRI. BASAVARAJ R. BANNUR, ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER AND: K SHIVANNA, S/O LATE M.S.KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT NO.608/1661, - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC:13440 CRL.P No. 2191 of 2026 HC-KAR 1ST FLOOR, EWS HOUSE, 2ND STAGE, 6TH MAIN ROAD, 6TH CROSS, KENGERI UPANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 060. THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 …RESPONDENT BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DT:31-12-2025 PASSED BY THE COURT OF LXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.238/2023 ON APPLICATION FILED U/S 391 OF CR.P.C R/W SECTION 432 OF BNSS FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER U/S 391 OF CR.P.C. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:13440 CRL.P No. 2191 of 2026 HC-KAR CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order of the concerned Court, which rejects an application under Section 391 of the Cr.P.C. refusing to accept the production of evidence before the Appellate Court.

#2. Heard Sri. Basavaraj R. Bannur, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and have perused the material on record.

#3. The petitioner is the accused, who gets convicted of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in terms of an order dated 23.01.2023. The petitioner prefers an appeal before the First Appellate Court under Section 374 of the Cr.P.C. The issue is not with regard to the merit of the matter before the concerned Court. Before the concerned Court, the petitioner files an application under Section 391 of the Cr.P.C., which comes to be rejected by the following order: - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:13440 CRL.P No. 2191 of 2026 HC-KAR "ORDERS ON APPLICATION U/SEC.391 OF CR.P.C Heard Further argument. This application filed by the appellant counsel for seeking permit to adduce additional evidence on behalf of the appellant. identity The counsel for the appellant has argued this appeal preferred by to challenging the appellant Judgment and conviction passed in C.C.No.14102/2020 for the offence U/Sec.138 of N.I. Act. Further argued that the accused has not received any amount and not received any cheque in favour of the complainant and also notice not served on the accused and also not furnished correct address on the notice and in this regard Ex.D.1 was marked i.e., Bank Pass Book, it shown correct address of the accused. Further argued that before the Trial Court the accused was not produced Aadhar card, Voter Grampanchayath member Aadhar card, but now at this stage the appellant has filed this applicationa along with Aadhar card, Voter I.D card and Bank Pass book and also Gram Panchayath Member card for the purpose to show correct address of the accused. Hence, this application for need and essential for production of documents by way of additional evidence. Further argued that filled up in the name complainant and filed false case, and misused the cheque for the purpose of wrongful gain, while passing the Judgment the Trial Court come to wrong conclusion. Further argued that in failure to submit the same the appellant could not lead his evidence and in the absence of said vital evidence the appellant got convicted by the Trial Court. Therefore, the appellant filed this application. and Driving Licence He further argued that the appellant has good case on merits. Therefore, appellant filed this application U/Sec. 391 of Cr.P.C for seeking permit to adduce evidence on behalf of the appellant along with additional documents as stated above. He further argued that the sole intention of the appellant to produce evidence and call upon the witnesses to prove his innocence by producing above said documents. If the instant application is not allowed the appellant will be put to great loss and hardship. Hence he prays to allow the application. - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:13440 CRL.P No. 2191 of 2026 HC-KAR On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent filed detailed objections by denying reasons mentioned in the application filed by the appellant. He further argued that entire paras in application of the appellant totally false as because evidence of accused adduced and marked Ex.D.1, D1(a) and also Advocate for the accused/appellant submit before the trial Court that no further evidence. Therefore, now at this stage the appellant counsel filed application U/Sec. 391 of Cr.P.C for seeking additional evidence is not sustainable and liable to be dismissed. Hence he prays to dismiss the application with costs. Heard arguments from both side. Having considered the arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the respondent. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:- O R D E R Application filed U/Sec.391 of Cr.P.C and 432 of BNSS is hereby dismissed with cost of Rs.5,000/-. Arguments from the appellant side on main appeal finally call on : 31.01.2026. Sd/- LXII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-63) Bengaluru City."

#4. Section 391 of the Cr.P.C. or any provision which should answer an application must reflect application of mind. The order narrates the circumstances, in which, the application is filed, does not apply its mind and rejects the application by perfunctory and cryptic order, which is in violation of the purport and intent under Section 391 of the Cr.P.C. On this sole - 6 - NC: 2026:KHC:13440 CRL.P No. 2191 of 2026 HC-KAR ground, the order dated 31.12.2025 is to be obliterated and the matter remitted back to the hands of the concerned Court to consider the application afresh.

#5. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. (ii) The order dated 31.12.2025 passed by the LXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City in Criminal Appeal No.238/2023, is here by set aside. (iii) The application filed by the petitioner under Section 391 of the Cr.P.C. shall be reconsidered by the concerned Court, in accordance with law. SD/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE SJK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39 CT:SG