- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36017 CRL.P No. 11824 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 11824 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. DHANALAKSHMI WIFE OF LATE RAMAKRISHNAIAH AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS MAHADESHWARA NILAYA R/O. 21, GROUND FLOOR 5TH CROSS, NAGAPPA STREET PALACE GUTTAHALLI BENGALURU-560 003. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SANGAMESH .R.B, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. T.K. PUTTAPPA S/O. T.P. KRISHNAPPA NAIK AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/O. NO.21, 1ST FLOOR NAGAPPA STREET, PALACE GUTTAHALLI BENGALURU - 560 003. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SAMPATH .A, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 13.12.2024 PASSED ON IA FILED UNDER SECTION 391 OF CRPC, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1316/2015 ON THE FILE OF LXIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH64) BENGALURU AND ETC. Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36017 CRL.P No. 11824 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FRESH MATTERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by the accused assailing the order dated 13.12.2024 passed on I.A.No.1 by the appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.1316/2015, wherein petitioner's application filed under Section 391 of Cr.P.C. is rejected. 2. The respondent/complainant has filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner herein has contested the proceedings and has led evidence in rebuttal. Upon assessment of the evidence presented by both parties, the learned Magistrate convicted the petitioner and imposed a sentence directing the payment of a fine of Rs.26,60,000/-, with a default clause of simple imprisonment for a period of 10 months. The petitioner - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36017 CRL.P No. 11824 of 2025 has challenged the said conviction and sentence before the appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1316/2015. 3. The petitioner, being the accused and appellant in the Criminal Appeal, filed an application under Section 391 Cr.P.C. seeking leave to produce additional evidence. The appellate Court, however, rejected the application on the ground that the documents proposed to be produced at the appellate stage were irrelevant to the issues involved in the case. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterating the grounds raised in the application, has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sukhjeet Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others1. Relying on the said judgment, he contends that the documents sought to be produced are crucial for adjudicating the core issue concerning the issuance of the cheque by the accused. He further submits that the appellate Court’s 1 2019 (107) ACC 335 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36017 CRL.P No. 11824 of 2025 rejection of the application has resulted in a miscarriage of justice, thereby warranting interference by this Court. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/complainant submits that the petitioner’s eviction proceedings initiated in S.C. No. 339/2015 have already been dismissed and, therefore, the documents of the said suit bear no relevance to the present proceedings. 6. Heard the learned counsel on record. This Court has given anxious consideration to the application filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 391 Cr.P.C. and the contentions advanced by both parties. 7. On a closer examination of the averments made in the application, this Court notes that the accused seeks production of approximately seven documents. However, the affidavit filed in support of the application does not elaborate the specific relevance of each document to the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36017 CRL.P No. 11824 of 2025 issues arising in the appeal. Among the documents sought to be produced under Section 391 Cr.P.C. are: (i) The Vakalatnama of the complainant filed in O.S. No. 2711/2010; (ii) A copy of the fee receipt dated 10.12.2010; (iii) Objections filed in the said suit to an application under Order XXXIX Rules 3 & 4 read with Section 151 Cr.P.C. in O.S. No. 2711/2010; (iv) Reply filed by C.S. Kumar, Advocate; and (v) Depositions of Nagraj, Pramila @ Prema, and Kumari Hemalatha. 8. Though the supporting affidavit runs into eleven paragraphs, it fails to demonstrate how these documents are relevant or necessary for the determination of the issues in the criminal appeal. 9. This Court also cannot lose sight of the fact that the appeal arises from proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, where the cheque amount in question is Rs.26,60,000/-. The complainant has already produced the dishonored cheque and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36017 CRL.P No. 11824 of 2025 accompanying bank statements showing payment to the accused. These are the crucial issues that require re- appraisal by the appellate Court. The scope of enquiry at the appellate stage is inherently limited, and any rebuttal evidence led by the accused should be strictly confined to countering the legal presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of the Act. The accused cannot, under the guise of producing additional documents, seek to expand the scope of enquiry at the appellate stage. 10. This Court is satisfied that the application filed by the accused is, in substance, a feeble attempt aimed solely at delaying and protracting the proceedings. The appellate Court has rightly rejected the application. The order impugned does not suffer from any legal infirmity, and the judgment cited by the accused is not applicable to the facts of the present case. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36017 CRL.P No. 11824 of 2025 11. In view of the foregoing, the petition is devoid of merit and accordingly stands dismissed. All contentions of the parties are kept open. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE CA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 58