Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:145704 Court No. - 89 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 35950 of 2024 Applicant :- Pooran Chand Sharma @ Ram Babu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dileep Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J. 1. Heard Shri Dileep Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri S.D.Shukla, learned AGA for the State. 2. The present application u/s 528 of BNSS of 2023 has been filed with prayer to quash the order dated 19.09.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.3, Mathura, rejecting the application (48Kha), under Section 391 Cr.P.C., filed by the applicant in Criminal Appeal No.108 of 2024 (Pooran Chand Sharma @ Ram Babu Vs. State of U.P.), pending in the Court of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.03, Mathura. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that an application was filed before learned appellate Court in Criminal Appeal praying therein that the signature of PW-1 Pratap Singh upon the Power of Attorney dated 22.10.1981 be examined by the Government Hand Writing Expert and the second prayer was made that the statement of Krishna Singh Rajput, Advocate be recorded for proving it dated 22.02.1983 sent by Shri Krishna Singh Rajput, Advocate. 4. Learned counsel further submits that the above application was rejected by learned appellate Court, i.e. learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.3, Mathura vide order impugned. 5. It is further contended that this Court had passed an order on 01.11.2012 in Application U/s 482 No.36846 of 2012 (Pooran Chand Sharma @ Ram Babu Vs. State of U.P. and another) and had specifically directed the trial Court to summon Shri Brij Mohan a witness for defence and one opportunity was directed to be given to the applicant to examine the aforesaid defence witness. He further submits that the learned trial Court closed the evidence of the defence without giving proper opportunity and irreparable loss has been caused to the applicant. He further submits that the additional evidence can be taken by the appellate Court under the provisions of Section 391 Cr.P.C. and he further submits that in the interest of justice, the appellate Court ought to have allowed the application filed by the applicant but the learned appellate Court has rejected the same. 6. Learned counsel further submits that in the interest of justice, one opportunity be given to the applicant for proving his innocence. 7. On the other hand, learned AGA has opposed the prayer of the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the applicant was directed by this Court earlier to produce Brij Mohan as defence witness but the applicant did not produce the defence witness Brij Mohan before the learned trial Court and several opportunities were given to him but due to non production of the defence witness Brij Mohan, the evidence of defence was closed by the learned trial Court. He further submits that at the appellate stage, additional evidence cannot be taken in a routine manner. Some cogent reasons must be shown as to why the same was not produced before the trial Court. 8. On perusal of the order impugned, it appears that the applicant was given several opportunities to produce Brijj Mohan as defence witness as directed by this Court earlier vide order dated 01.11.2012 passed in Application U/s 482 No.36846 of 2012 (Pooran Chand Sharma @ Ram Babu Vs. State of U.P. and another) but the applicant did not produce the said witness and the opportunity of the defence was closed. Section 391 Cr.P.C. provides that the appellate Court may take additional evidence or direct it to be taken by the trial Court but a case for the same is to be made out. 9. Since, several opportunities were given to the applicant by the learned trial Court for producing the witness Brij Mohan as directed by this Court vide order dated 01.11.2012 in Application U/s 482 No.36846 of 2012 (Pooran Chand Sharma @ Ram Babu Vs. State of U.P. and another) but the applicant did not produce the said witness as defence witness and the opportunities of the applicant for adducing evidence was closed and now the applicant is trying to raise the same issue and is seeking for adducing the additional evidence in his defence. Though, the appellate Court has power to take additional evidence under Section 391 Cr.P.C. but in this case, the appellant did not choose to produce the evidence before the learned trial Court, which now he seeks to produce before the appellate Court. 10. In view of the above, no illegality appears to have been caused by the learned trial Court concerned while passing the order impugned. 11. The application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed. Order Date :- 23.8.2025 RKM Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad