TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court affirms denial of additional evidence in Section 138 case. Discretion upheld, no costs.</h1> <h3>Mrs Pournima W/o. Kishor Pendke Versus Ashok Manibhai Patel, State of Maharashtra</h3> Mrs Pournima W/o. Kishor Pendke Versus Ashok Manibhai Patel, State of Maharashtra - TMI Issues Involved:1. Conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.2. Rejection of application to lead additional evidence under Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.3. Allegation of interpolation in the date on the cheque.4. Discovery of a photostat copy of the cheque as additional evidence.5. Discretion of the appellate court under Section 391 of the Code.Detailed Analysis:1. Conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881:The petitioner was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, 1881, for issuing a cheque that was dishonored due to insufficient funds. The complainant alleged that the petitioner issued the cheque as part of an agreement for the sale of land, which was not honored. Despite a demand notice, the petitioner failed to pay the amount, leading to the conviction.2. Rejection of application to lead additional evidence under Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:The petitioner sought to introduce a photostat copy of the cheque as additional evidence, claiming it bore a different date, which would support the defense of interpolation. The Additional Sessions Judge rejected this application, stating that the defense of interpolation had already been raised and evidence from handwriting experts had been presented during the trial.3. Allegation of interpolation in the date on the cheque:The petitioner argued that the date on the cheque was altered from '7-2-2008' to '7-12-2008' by inserting the figure '1'. This claim was supported by a private handwriting expert but not conclusively by the government expert. The trial court did not find the defense persuasive and convicted the petitioner.4. Discovery of a photostat copy of the cheque as additional evidence:The petitioner claimed to have found a photostat copy of the cheque in June 2017, which showed the original date as '7-2-2008'. The petitioner argued that this evidence was crucial for a just decision and sought to introduce it under Section 391 of the Code. The complainant countered that this was a manipulative tactic and that the photocopy could easily be tampered with.5. Discretion of the appellate court under Section 391 of the Code:The court examined the provisions and judicial interpretations of Section 391, which allows the appellate court to admit additional evidence if deemed necessary for justice. The court emphasized that this power should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases. The petitioner's claim of discovering the photostat copy after the trial was not found credible, given the nine-year gap and the nature of the evidence. The court noted that allowing such evidence could reopen the entire trial, which is not the intent of Section 391.Conclusion:The court found no error in the Additional Sessions Judge's decision to reject the application for additional evidence. The exercise of discretion was deemed appropriate and not perverse or unreasonable. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and the rule was discharged with no order as to costs.
TaxTMI 