TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (11) TMI 445
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short 'the N.I. Act'), against the respondent/accused-Rajiv Bansal. The trial Court, after recording the evidence, vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.07.2016, held the accused liable of the offence and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for a period of 01 year for commission of the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and to pay the compensation of Rs. 20.00 lacs to the complainant. It would be relevant to refer to the order dated 26.07.2016. The operative part of the said order, reads as under:- "13. I have heard the rival contention of both the parties and have minutely gone through the contents placed on record by both the parties. In the instan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....amounting Rs. 18,00,000/-. It is the admitted fact by the accused that he has taken loan of Rs. 20,00,000/- from the complainant. This fact is also proved on the perusal of Ex. P11 & P12 which are certified copy of two cheques amounting Rs. 20 lacs. Therefore, there is no issue of RTGs of Rs. 15 lacs in favour of RBL. Though, complainant during his testimony deposed before the court that he has given loan of Rs. 35 lacs out of Rs. 15 lacs were given through RTGs and remaining 20 lacs through cheques but the present matter is related to Rs. 20 lacs only which were given through cheques. Therefore, the question whether RBL and Rajiv Bansal are one and same person need not to be considered in the present complaint. As far as loan of Rs. 20 lac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted by the complainant himself that the appellant had returned a sum of Rs. 11 Lacs through R.T.G.S., but inadvertently, the appellant could not produce his Bank Account Statements at the time of his evidence, showing that the amount of Rs. 11 Lacs has been debited from his Bank Accounts and credited to the Bank Account of the complainant. However, the Account Statements of the appellant are already attached with the appeal filed by the appellant." The petitioner contested the application by way of filing a reply. The Lower Appellate Court vide impugned order dated 22.07.2021, allowed the application filed under Section 391 read with Section 311 Cr.P.C., for additional evidence. The operative part of the said order, reads as under:- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n reaching to the conclusion that the cheques in question were issued in discharge of legally recoverable debt. In this sense, the proposed evidence is essential for the just decision of this case. In any case, the respondent will have the opportunity to cross-examine the witness who brings such additional evidence. Largely, it is only a matter of putting the statements on record and analyzing the transactions. Of course, the perspectives given to such transactions would be a part of the respective contentions and those shall be taken up at the time of final disposal of the appeal. It is not that the appellant is taking a new defence. Such suggestions were given during the cross-examination of the complainant. The oversight of the previous ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....following reasons:- (a) It is well settled principle of law as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment "Rambhau vs. State of Maharashtra", Criminal Appeal No. 636 of 1995, that the Appellate Court has wide power under Section 391 Cr.P.C. to allow additional evidence even at an appellate stage subject to the condition that the same is not going to cause any prejudice to the accused or amounts to re-trial or change the nature of the case of the accused or not to fill up the lacuna but to serve the ends of justice. It is also held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the Appellate Court can take additional evidence to rectify irregularity committed by the prosecution but not to rectify a defect and lacuna in th....