1 2025:CGHC:39205 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 763 of 2021 Sumit Harsani S/o Shri Gurmukhdas Harsani Aged About 30 Years At Gali No. 02, Near Kishore Shopping Mall, Katora Talab, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - Sushil Darira S/o Late Shri Ramesh Darira At Byron Bazar, Raipur District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - State of Chhattisgarh through Collector District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., ... Respondents For the petitioner : Mr. Lukesh Mishra, Advocate For respondent no.1 : Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate For the State/R-2 : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, Govt.Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Order on Board 06/08/2025 1. By impugned order dated 17.01.2020 passed by the JMFC, Raipur in Criminal Case No.2295/2018, the petitioner stands convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 6 months and to pay the compensation of Rs.12,05,000/- to the complainant. 2. The petitioner challenged the said order of JMFC in appeal before the 11th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur. Along with appeal, he filed an A ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by A ANNAJEE RAO Date: 2025.08.11 15:00:15 +0530 2 application under section 391 of CrPC, which has been rejected by the appellate Court by order dated 21.09.2021 passed in Cr.A.No.53/20 (filed on 07.10.2021). Against the said order of Appellate Court, the petitioner filed this revision under section 397 and 401 of CrPC seeking a direction to the appellate Court to call personnel from IT Department with relevant record as defence witness at the stage of appeal. 3. In the application u/s 391 of CrPC it has been pleaded before the appellate Court that complainant/respondent no.1 has admitted in Para-24 of his cross-examination that an agreement was executed between the parties and has further stated that he does not remember as to whether or not any such agreement was submitted to the I.T. Department along with his income tax return. Therefore, the petitioner by moving the application u/s 391 requested the appellate Court to call the officer from the IT Department as a defence witness at the stage of the appeal. 4. Respondent no.1 filed reply to application u/s 391 CrPC stating that the petitioner neither called the said witness during the evidence before the trial court nor made any effort in this regard. It is also mentioned in the reply that no application has been given in the trial court for this purpose, therefore, it was prayed by respondent no.1 that the said application be dismissed. 5. While hearing the application filed u/s 391 CrPC, the appellate court has observed that the trial Court has mentioned the facts mentioned in paragraph 24 of the cross examination of the evidence of the respondent no.1, in which also the complainant has stated that he does not remember whether the said agreement has been submitted by him to the department along with the income tax return. The appellate Court further observed that after the order of the trial Court dated 04.12.2019 the case was fixed for defence evidence but even at this stage, despite being given adequate opportunity, no evidence in this regard was presented by the 3 appellant/accused. The appellate Court rejected the application holding that essentially no fundamental reason is shown by the petitioner to call the witness related to the agreement in evidence. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant himself has admitted that there was an agreement which would be a reliable piece of evidence being a written document, therefore, the officials from I.T. Department ought to have been called, but the appellate Court has without considering the impact of the defence evidence, straight away rejected the application. He further contends that the complainant remembers that the said agreement has been submitted to the income Tax Department along with the income tax return and the copy of the above agreement is not available with the petitioner, therefore, it is necessary to get the above agreement from the Income Tax Department and get it examined by the Income Tax Officer. He further submits that the petitioner had presented the list of evidence before the lower Court to call a witness from the Income Tax Department as a defense witness , but due to lack of information about the PAN and IT Return of the complainant as also the jurisdiction of the Income Tax Department where the complainant filed ITR , the witness could not appear in the court. 7. Learned counsel for respondent no.1 refers to the order sheets of the trial Court and submits that on 04.12.2019 & 16.12.2019 time was given to the accused to lead defence evidence, but failed to produce the witness and on 06.01.2020, the accused along with his counsel had appeared before the trial Court and closed the defence evidence. 8. It has been almost 4 years ago the impugned order was passed. Even today the petitioner is unable to provide details of the witness and document which he wants to call in evidence. He has not been able to produce a copy of the alleged agreement. He has also not provided any details of the relevant PAN or IT returns etc. In such a situation, there is no 4 need to interfere with the order in question. Consequently, this revision is dismissed. 9. Since the matter is pending before the Court, the parties are directed to appear before the appellate Court on 16th September, 2025. Records of the trial Court as also the appellate court be sent back to the appellate Court. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Rao