Additional evidence in cheque dishonour appeal refused where account closure and undisputed statutory notice did not aid the defence.

The Madras HC held that additional evidence under Section 391 read with Section 91 CrPC was unnecessary in a Section 138 NI Act prosecution because the appeal turned on whether the cheque was issued towards a legally enforceable liability. It noted that dishonour due to account closure does not by itself defeat liability under Section 138. The proposed material relating to the police complaint, case diary, bank records, cheque book register, account statement, and postal officials would not assist the appellant, particularly since service of statutory notice was not disputed. The refusal to adduce additional evidence was therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellate court was justified in refusing to permit additional evidence under Section 391 read with Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Analysis: The requested documents and witnesses were held to be unnecessary for deciding the appeal, as the core question was whether the cheque had been issued towards a legally enforceable liability. The Court noted that dishonour of a cheque on the ground of account closure does not by itself defeat a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It also found that the proposed evidence relating to the police complaint, case diary, bank records, cheque book register, account statement, and postal officials would not assist the appellant, especially when service of statutory notice was not disputed. The Court further observed that a similar request had already been rejected and there was no sufficient basis to interfere with the appellate order.

Conclusion: The refusal to adduce additional evidence was upheld and the application was rightly dismissed.

---