Krishan Kumar v. Sanjeev Kumar

Judgment

#1. Application under Section 528 BNSS has been moved for Application under Section 528 BNSS has placing on record the application filed under Section 432 BNSS in placing on record the application filed under Section 432 BNSS placing on record the application filed under Section 432 BNSS compliance of order dated 28.04.2026 of this Court. compliance of order dated 28.04.2026 of this Court. compliance of order dated 28.04.2026 of this Court.

#3. Allowed. The documents (Annexures P documents (Annexures P-3 and P-4) are taken on record, subject to just exceptions. record, subject to just exceptions. CRR-717-2026 2026 (O&M)

#1. This revision petition under Section revision petition under Section 467 read with Section has been filed assailing order dated 17.12.2025 of learned 528 BNSS has been filed assailing order dated 17.12.2025 of learned 528 BNSS Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala in Criminal Appeal No.CRA-426- Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala in Criminal Appeal No.CRA Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala in Criminal Appeal No.CRA 2019 2019 titled ‘Krishan Kumar vs. Sanjeev Kumar’ titled ‘Krishan Kumar vs. Sanjeev Kumar’ dismissing application filed by the petitioner under Section 432 BNS/391 Cr.P.C. application filed by the pe titioner under Section 432 BNS/391 Cr.P.C. CRR-717-2026 2026 (O&M) 2

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner’s Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner’s appeal against the judgment of conviction appeal against the judgment dated 28.05.2019 passed by learned JMIC, Patiala was pending before learned A learned JMIC was pending before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala. During pendency of the appeal, petitioner moved an Judge, Patiala. During pendency of the appeal, petitioner moved an Judge, Patiala. During pendency of the appeal, petitioner moved an application under Section 391 Cr.P.C. to place on record Bank application under Section 391 Cr.P.C. to place on record Bank application under Section 391 Cr.P.C. to place on record Bank IndusInd Bank and State Bank of statements of Punjab National Bank, IndusInd Bank and State Bank of statements of Punjab National Bank, Patiala as records of payments made to t Patiala as records of payment made to the complainant. The documents demonstrated that substantial part payment were made over documents demonstrated that substantial part payment were made over documents demonstrated that substantial part payment were made over time through banking channel and the documents were a period of time through banking channel and the documents were a period of essential to determine whether any legally enforceable debt existed to essential to determine whether any legally enforceable debt existed to essential to determine whether any legally enforceable debt existed to the extent claimed in the complaint. The appellate court dismissed the extent claimed in the complaint. The appellate court dismissed the application on hyper technical grounds. Refusal of the application application on hyper technical grounds. Refusal of the application application on hyper technical grounds. Refusal of the application caused grave prejudice to the petitioner. The order which suffer caused grave prejudice to the petitioner he order which suffered from material illegality, called for interference. material illegality,

#4. Record perused. he petitioner, who was convicted by learned JMIC, The petitioner, who was convicted by learned JMIC vide judgment of conviction dated 28.05.2019, in a complaint vide judgment of conviction dated 28.05.2019 Patiala vide judgment of conviction dated 28.05.2019 under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, filed an appeal on under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act

02.07.2019. An application was filed before the Appellate Court under 02.07.2019. An application was filed before the Appellate Court unde 02.07.2019. An application was filed before the Appellate Court unde Section 391 Cr.P.C. 391 Cr.P.C. on 25.02.2020 for producing original affidavit/statements of account of petitioner and affidavit/statement petitioner and respondent and to further cross examine Sanjeev Kumar Singla in the complaint. While further cross examine Sanjeev Kumar Singla in the complaint. further cross examine Sanjeev Kumar Singla in the complaint. dismissing the application, following findings dismissing the application, following findings were recorded by the Appellate Court: Appellate Court CRR-717-2026 2026 (O&M) 3 However, he failed to specify what “…………However, he failed to specify what purpose would be served by proving the said documents., purpose would be served by proving the said documents., Moreover, in his statement under Section 313 Cr.PC, he Moreover, in his statement under Section 313 Cr.PC, he that there was no transaction had taken the defence that there was no transaction between him and complainant and there is no document on between him and complainant and there is no document on the file to prove that there was any money transaction the file to prove that there was any money transaction between him and the complainant. So, the present between him and the complainant. So, the present application is clearly against the defence of the accused application is clearly against the defence of the accused ad been taken by him during the trial of the present which had been taken by him during the trial of the present case as in his defence, he has denied any transaction case as in his defence, he has denied any transaction between him and complainant and now, at this stage, this between him and complainant and now, at this stage, this court is unable to understand that for what purpose he court is unable to understand that for what purpose he wants to prove the tenancy documents, affidavit, account wants to prove the tenancy documents, statement of both the parties as well as the other complaint statement of both the parties as well as the other complaint filed by him, when he has denied any transaction between filed by him, when he has denied any transaction between himself and complainant. So, this court does not find any himself and complainant. So, this court does not find any merit in the present application and hence, the same is merit in the present application and hence, the same is hereby dismissed.”

#5. Following observations of of Hon’ble Apex Court tsinh Chehuji Rathod vs. State of Gujarat & Anr.’, 2024(4) SCC ‘Ajitsinh Chehuji Rathod vs. State of Gujarat & Anr.’, 2024(4) SCC tsinh Chehuji Rathod vs. State of Gujarat & Anr.’, 2024(4) SCC , would be relevant before examining the factual aspects:- , would be relevant before examining the factual aspects: 453, would be relevant before examining the factual aspects: “9. At the outset, we may note that the law is well- “9. At the outset, we may note that the law is well d by a catena of judgments rendered by this Court settled by a catena of judgments rendered by this Court that power to record additional evidence under section 391 that power to record additional evidence under section 391 CRR-717-2026 2026 (O&M) 4 CrPC, 1973 should only be exercised when the party CrPC, 1973 should only be exercised when the party making such request was prevented from presenting the making such request was prevented from presenting the evidence in the trial despite due diligence being exercised evidence in the trial despite due diligenc or that the facts giving rise to such prayer came to light at or that the facts giving rise to such prayer came to light at a later stage during pendency of the appeal and that non- a later stage during pendency of the appeal and that non recording of such evidence may lead to failure of justice.” recording of such evidence may lead to failure of justice.”

#6. Further, Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘State of ‘Rajasthan vs. Asharam @ Ashumal’, 2023 SCC Online SC 423, ‘Rajasthan vs. Asharam @ Ashumal’, 2023 SCC Online SC 423 ‘Rajasthan vs. Asharam @ Ashumal’, 2023 SCC Online SC 423 observed as under:- observed as under: “14. This Court in Rajeswar Prasad Misra v. State Rajeswar Prasad Misra v. State of West Bengal and Another (1966) 1 SCR 178 has of West Bengal and Another (1966) 1 SCR 178 opined that as additional evidence may be necessary for opined that as additional evidence may be necessary for gislature has refrained from various reasons, the legislature has refrained from curtailing such discretion of the appellate court. The curtailing such discretion of the appellate court. The touchstone of when the additional evidence at the touchstone of when the additional evidence at the appellate stage may be taken on record is not the appellate stage may be taken on record is not the impossibility or inability to pronounce the judgment in its impossibility or inability to pronounce the judgment in its whether there would be a failure of justice absence, but whether there would be a failure of justice without such additional evidence. This discretion is not to without such additional evidence. This discretion is not to be exercised lightly but requires caution and care as it is to be exercised lightly but requires caution and care as it is to be exercised only in cases when the appellate court finds, be exercised only in cases when the appellate court finds, on good and justifiable grounds, that there would be a on good and justifiable groun failure of justice without the additional evidence being failure of justice without the additional evidence being taken on record. However, once this condition is satisfied, taken on record. However, once this condition is satisfied, CRR-717-2026 2026 (O&M) 5 there is no restriction on the kind of evidence received, there is no restriction on the kind of evidence received, which may be formal or substantial.” which may be formal or substantial.”

#7. ratio of the decisions to the factual matrix of Applying the ratio of the decisions to the factual matrix of the case, order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, the case, order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, the case, order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, appears to be legal and valid. Statement of the petitioner recorded appears to be legal and valid. Statement of the petitioner recorded appears to be legal and valid. Statement of the petitioner recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has been placed on record during arguments. under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has been placed on record under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has been placed on record Defence taken by the petitioner taken by the petitioner is as under:- - he complaint filed by complainant without any “The complaint filed by complainant without any basis as the amount in question has been filled by basis as the amount in question has been filled by complainant himself as there is no transaction of the complainant himself as there is no transaction of the accused with the complainant as the complainant is the accused with the complainant as the complainant is the bread earner of the family and there is no other source of bread earner of the family and there is no other s income to the family of the accused. Complainant has income to the family of the accused. Complainant has wrongly indulged the accused in wrong case as there is no wrongly indulged the accused in wrong case as there is no document on the file to prove that there was any money document on the file to prove that there was any money transaction pending between the complainant and accused. transaction pending between the complainant and accused. discharge acquittal in the interest Hence. I am liable to be discharge acquittal in the interest of justice.”

#8. Concededly, petitioner was granted an opportunity to put Concededly, petitioner was granted an opportunity to put examination cross-examination complainant when he was the respondent/complainant when he was the petitioner was unable to put examined as a witness and the plea that the petitioner was unable to put examined as a witness and the plea that important material question to the complainant is not important m aterial question to the complainant is not backed by the exercise of due diligence. The statements exercise of due diligence. The statement s of accounts sought to be produced on record were available when petitioner was given an produced on record were available when petitioner was given an produced on record were available when petitioner was given an CRR-717-2026 2026 (O&M) 6 opportunity to lead defence evidence but the same were never opportunity to lead defence evidence but the same were never opportunity to lead defence evidence but the same were never It was never the case of the petitioner before the Trial Court produced. It was never the case of the petitioner before the Trial Court It was never the case of the petitioner before the Trial Court that he had made part payments to the respondent/complainant. that he had made part to the respondent/complainant. Neither before the Appellate Court nor before this Court, learned counsel for before the Appellate Court nor before this Court, learned counsel for before the Appellate Court nor before this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner has been able to illustrate which a the petitioner been able to illustrate which affidavit is sought to be produced on record and why the statements of accounts are necessary produced on record and why the statements of produced on record and why the statements of for just and proper decision of the case. for just and proper decision of the case.

#9. Given the stance of the petitioner in his statement under Given the stance of the petitioner in Section 313 Cr.P.C., the Court is at a loss to appreciate Section 313 Cr.P.C., the Court is at a loss to appreciate how the additional evidence sought to be produced would help his cause. There additional evidence sought to be produced would help his cause. There additional evidence sought to be produced would help his cause. There clear attempt on the part of the petitioner to reopen the entire case is a clear attempt on the part of the petitioner to reopen the entire case clear attempt on the part of the petitioner to reopen the entire case examination of the complainant at appellate stage which by seeking re-examination of the complainant at appellate stage which by seeking re cannot be furthered. Allowing the application would cannot be furthered. Allowing the application would virtually reopen the case, which pertains to the year 2016. This cannot be permitted the case, which pertains to the year 2016 his cannot be permitted.

#10. There is no merit in the revision petition as no apparent There is no merit in the revision petition as no apparent illegality or perversity is perceived in the impugned illegality or perversity is impugned order. Dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application, if any, stands disposed Pending miscellaneous application, if any, stands disposed

#12. of. .2026

16.07.2026 Kapil SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL) (SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable : Yes/No : Yes/No