2025:UHC:928 1 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc Application (u/s 528) No.95 of 2025 Mahendra Singh @ Mohinder Singh --Applicant Versus State Of Uttarakhand and Another --Respondents --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Vikas Kumar Guglani, learned counsel for applicant. Mr. Bhaskar Chandra Joshi, learned A.G.A. with Ms. Sweta Badola Dobhal, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent No.1. Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral) Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By means of the present C528 application, the applicant has put to challenge the order dated 14.01.2025 passed by the learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Appeal No.153 of 2023 Mahendra Singh @ Mohinder Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another, whereby, an application moved by him under Section 391 of Cr.P.C. for adducing the additional evidences, was rejected. 3. The facts of the case shorn-off unnecessary details are that the applicant was convicted pursuant to a trial under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Aggrieved thereagainst, a Criminal Appeal No.153 of 2023 was preferred by the applicant before the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. During the pendency of the appeal, applicant has moved an application on 03.12.2024 for producing the bank statements of HDFC Bank, Punjab National Bank and ICICI Bank of Assandh Branch, District Karnal, 2025:UHC:928 2 Haryana and to call Branch Manager of the aforesaid Banks and one Raj Kumar witness of agreement to sale, as witnesses. 4. The ground which has been taken by the applicant in the aforesaid application under Section 391 of Cr.P.C. was that the aforesaid evidences could not have been produced during the trial because these information could be procured by the applicant after the conclusion of the trial. Learned Appellate Court i.e. Third Additional Sessions Judge, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar did not find favour with the reasons assigned by the applicant for moving the application and rejected the same vide impugned order dated 14.01.2025. 5. The reasons for rejecting the application of the applicant are cited in Para Nos.16 and 17 of the impugned order, which are quoted below:- Þ16- orZeku ekeys ds rF;ksa vkSj ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, ;g rks Li"V gS fd fo}ku~ fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds le{k orZeku ekeyk fnukad 17@05@2016 ls fnukad 16@08@2023( ,d O;kid varjky rd yfEcr jgk vkSj vfHk;qDr dks vius lQkbZ esa lk{; izLrqr djus dk i;kZIr volj iznRr fd;k x;k vkSj mlus vius lQkbZ esa lk{; Hkh izLrqr fd;kA ogha orZeku vihy ds cgl ds çØe ij vihykFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ds }kjk mDr izkFkZuk&i= izLrqr fd;k x;kA 17- bl izdkj vihykFkhZ ds }kjk vius izkFkZuk&i= ds tfj;s ftl rF; dks vfHkys[k esa crkSj vfrfjDr lcwr tksM+us dh tks ekax dh xbZ gS mls Lohd`r fd;k tkus dk ;g U;k;ky; dksbZ U;k;ksfpr vk/kkj miyC/k ugha ikrk gSA D;ksafd mlds izkFkZuk&i= esa ,slk dksbZ rF; of.kZr ugha gS tks bl ckr dk lek/kku djs fd dfFkr vfrfjDr lk{; dks is’k djus dh tks mlds }kjk ekax dh x;h gS og fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds le{k pys fopkj.k esa ls ,sls dkSu ls rF;ksa ls lansg ds ckny dks( tks iz’uxr pSd( ftldks vfHk;qDr ds }kjk ifjoknh dks fn;k tkuk Lohdkj gS ds eq[; fook|d ij lcwr dk izR;{k vkSj egRoiw.kZ izHkko iM+rk gks( dks orZeku vihy esa gVk nsxh ftlls okn esa eq[; fook|d ij lcwr dk izR;{k vkSj egRoiw.kZ izHkko iM+s vkSj og mls vfHkys[k dk Hkkx cukus ds fy;s vfuok;Z cukrk gksA D;ksafd vihy ds Lrj ij vfrfjDr lk{; dh Lohdk;Zrk rks bl rF; dh izklafxdrk fuHkZj djrh gS fd vihykFkhZ bl rF; dks rks nf’kZr djs gh fd mlds ikl fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds le{k pys fopkj.k esa bl rjg ds lk{; dks tksM+us dk dksbZ volj miyC/k ugha Fkk vkSj blds vfrfjDr tks egRoiw.kZ gS fd vihyh; U;k;ky; dks ,sls vfrfjDr izi=ksa lk{; dks vfHkys[k dk Hkkx cukus dh bl dkj.k vko’;drk gS fd blds fcuk og fu.kZ; lquk ikus esa leFkZ ugha gksxkA rks ,slh fLFkfr esa bl Lrj ij vihykFkhZ dk mDr izkFkZuk&i= Lohdkj fd, tkus dk vk/kkj miyC/k ugha gSAß 2025:UHC:928 3 6. It is contended by the learned Appellate Court while rejecting the application of the applicant that the trial remained pending before the trial court since 17.05.2016 to 16.08.2023 and the applicant was given ample opportunity to produce the defence witness, but, he did not file any evidence during that period of long pendency of the litigation. Apart from that, it has been mentioned by the learned Appellate Court that that the applicant has not mentioned any fact in the application moved under Section 391 Cr.P.C. that the documents, which were required to be filed, were necessary which effect directly or indirectly to the lis. 7. Having gone through the order impugned in the present C528 application and after appreciating the reasoning given by the learned Appellate Court, I found that the reasoning which has been given by the learned Appellate Court is quite convincing and need no interference. Moreover, the application which has been filed by the applicant appears to be nothing but a kind of delaying tactics in disposal of the criminal appeal. 8. Accordingly, the present C528 application is dismissed in-limine. 9. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 14.02.2025 PN