CRR-1688 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT 129 Bhupinder v. Raj Kumar and another CORAM: Present: SUKHVINDER KAUR, J. (Oral) 1. Procedure has been filed by the the learned 1881 (in short ‘the undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay compensation of the amount equivalent to the cheque amount petitioner, aggrieved by the conviction appeal, which is currently pending before During the pendency of the appeal, the petitione additional evidence before application under Section 391 learned Appellate Court 2. Section 138 of the Act for dishonoring a cheque. The trial court sentenced the petitioner to imprisonment and imposed a fine 1688-2025 -1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Bhupinder Singh Raj Kumar and another CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR Mr. Arvind Kashyap, Advocate for the petitioner. **** SUKHVINDER KAUR, J. (Oral) Present petition under Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the accused learned trial court under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in short ‘the Act’) for dishonoring a cheque undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay compensation of the amount equivalent to the cheque amount petitioner, aggrieved by the conviction appeal, which is currently pending before During the pendency of the appeal, the petitione additional evidence before the learned Appellate application under Section 391 of Cr.P.C. learned Appellate Court. Hence, the present revision before this Court. The petitioner was convicted by the learned Magistrate under Section 138 of the Act for dishonoring a cheque. The trial court sentenced the petitioner to imprisonment and imposed a fine 1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR-1688-2025 Date of Decision: 22.9.2025 …Petitioner. …Respondents. HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR , Advocate for the petitioner. petition under Section 391 of the Code of Criminal accused-petitioner, who was convicted by trial court under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, ) for dishonoring a cheque. He was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay compensation of the amount equivalent to the cheque amount. The petitioner, aggrieved by the conviction and order of sentence, filed an appeal, which is currently pending before the learned Appellate Court. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner sought permission to place the learned Appellate Court by filing an of Cr.P.C., which was dismissed by the Hence, the present revision before this Court. r was convicted by the learned Magistrate under Section 138 of the Act for dishonoring a cheque. The trial court sentenced the petitioner to imprisonment and imposed a fine as stated above Date of Decision: 22.9.2025 . petition under Section 391 of the Code of Criminal petitioner, who was convicted by trial court under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, . He was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay . The , filed an Court. r sought permission to place Court by filing an , which was dismissed by the r was convicted by the learned Magistrate under Section 138 of the Act for dishonoring a cheque. The trial court sentenced as stated above. GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.09.24 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-1688 Aggrieved by this conviction, the petitioner filed an appeal befor learned Sessions Court. filed an application under Section 391 Cr evidence. Aggrieved with the same, the 3. lower Appellate Court had trial of complaint under Section 138 of the Act, the petitione application dated 16.9.2023 before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Fatehgarh Sahib against respondent No.2 for committing fraud and the said application was pending for inquiry which Investigating Officer. The the other documents which were not available at the time of defence evidence in the trial Court. documents were case, which fact has been ignored by the learned Appellate Court and has prayed for setting aside the impugned order. 4. discretion, take additional evidence if it considers such eviden for the just decision of the case. However, this power is not intended to allow parties to re power to take additional evidence should be exercised sparingly and only in cases where: (i) 1688-2025 -2 Aggrieved by this conviction, the petitioner filed an appeal befor learned Sessions Court. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner filed an application under Section 391 Cr . The learned Appellate Court Aggrieved with the same, the petitioner has knocked the door Learned counsel for the petitioner contended lower Appellate Court had erred in dismissing the application. trial of complaint under Section 138 of the Act, the petitione application dated 16.9.2023 before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Fatehgarh Sahib against respondent No.2 for committing fraud and the said application was pending for inquiry which Investigating Officer. The petitioner want other documents which were not available at the time of defence evidence in the trial Court. He further contended that the said documents were very much necessary for just and proper decision o , which fact has been ignored by the learned Appellate Court and has prayed for setting aside the impugned order. Section 391 Cr.P.C provides that an appellate court may, at its discretion, take additional evidence if it considers such eviden the just decision of the case. However, this power is not intended to allow parties to re-litigate the entire case by introducing fresh evidence. The power to take additional evidence should be exercised sparingly and only in cases where: The evidence sought to be introduced was not available at the time of trial despite due diligence; and 2- Aggrieved by this conviction, the petitioner filed an appeal before During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner filed an application under Section 391 Cr.P.C., seeking to adduce additional learned Appellate Court dismissed the said application. petitioner has knocked the doors of this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned erred in dismissing the application. At the time of trial of complaint under Section 138 of the Act, the petitioner filed application dated 16.9.2023 before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Fatehgarh Sahib against respondent No.2 for committing fraud and the said application was pending for inquiry which was being conducted through the petitioner wanted to produce the said record and other documents which were not available at the time of adducing He further contended that the said very much necessary for just and proper decision of the , which fact has been ignored by the learned Appellate Court and has prayed for setting aside the impugned order. C provides that an appellate court may, at its discretion, take additional evidence if it considers such evidence necessary the just decision of the case. However, this power is not intended to litigate the entire case by introducing fresh evidence. The power to take additional evidence should be exercised sparingly and only in The evidence sought to be introduced was not available at the time of trial despite due diligence; and e the During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner additional said application. of this Court. learned t the time of r filed application dated 16.9.2023 before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Fatehgarh Sahib against respondent No.2 for committing fraud and the said s being conducted through the to produce the said record and adducing He further contended that the said f the , which fact has been ignored by the learned Appellate Court and has C provides that an appellate court may, at its ce necessary the just decision of the case. However, this power is not intended to litigate the entire case by introducing fresh evidence. The power to take additional evidence should be exercised sparingly and only in The evidence sought to be introduced was not available at the GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.09.24 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-1688 (ii) 5. application under Section 391 Cr.P.C. that had been moved before the learned Appellate Court for seeking permission to lead additional evidence in the appeal. By way of additional evidence, the petitioner wanted to place on record the application dated 16.9.2 Superintendent of Police, Fatehgarh Sahib and the original postal receipt. As the said application had been filed by the petitioner himself before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Fatehgarh Sahib, so it was very much within his knowledge at the time of adducing his evidence before the learned trial Court and had he exercised due diligence, he could have produced the same at the time of adducing of 16.9.2022 Fatehgarh Sahib has also been placed on record. Copy of report dated 18.2.2024 of Station House Officer, Police Station, Fatehgarh Sahib pertaining to Annexure P report, it has been held that the petitioner never appeared to participate in the investigation. It was further held that the petitioner had filed the application only for his own protection and transaction recommended to be filed. 6. relevance pertaining to a complaint under Section 138 of the Act. 1688-2025 -3 The evidence is essential for the just and fair decision of the appeal. The petitioner has placed on record Annexure P ication under Section 391 Cr.P.C. that had been moved before the learned Appellate Court for seeking permission to lead additional evidence in the appeal. By way of additional evidence, the petitioner wanted to place on record the application dated 16.9.2023 moved by him before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Fatehgarh Sahib and the original postal receipt. As the said application had been filed by the petitioner himself before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Fatehgarh Sahib, so it was very much within his knowledge at the time of adducing his evidence before the learned trial Court and had he exercised due diligence, he could have produced the same at the time of adducing of his evidence. Copy of application dated 16.9.2022 (Annexure P-5) moved to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Fatehgarh Sahib has also been placed on record. Copy of report dated 18.2.2024 of Station House Officer, Police Station, Fatehgarh Sahib pertaining to Annexure P-5 has also been placed on record. In the said t, it has been held that the petitioner never appeared to participate in the investigation. It was further held that the petitioner had filed the application only for his own protection and it was transaction. As the petitioner had nothing to prove his case and it was recommended to be filed. Thus, the proposed additional evidence relevance for the effective adjudication of the present appeal, pertaining to a complaint under Section 138 of the 3- The evidence is essential for the just and fair decision of the The petitioner has placed on record Annexure P-4, a copy of the ication under Section 391 Cr.P.C. that had been moved before the learned Appellate Court for seeking permission to lead additional evidence in the appeal. By way of additional evidence, the petitioner wanted to place 023 moved by him before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Fatehgarh Sahib and the original postal receipt. As the said application had been filed by the petitioner himself before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Fatehgarh Sahib, so it was very much within his knowledge at the time of adducing his evidence before the learned trial Court and had he exercised due diligence, he could have produced the evidence. Copy of application dated to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Fatehgarh Sahib has also been placed on record. Copy of report dated 18.2.2024 of Station House Officer, Police Station, Fatehgarh Sahib 5 has also been placed on record. In the said t, it has been held that the petitioner never appeared to participate in the investigation. It was further held that the petitioner had filed the application it was proved to be a case of money r had nothing to prove his case and it was Thus, the proposed additional evidence appears to have no effective adjudication of the present appeal, which is pertaining to a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments The evidence is essential for the just and fair decision of the 4, a copy of the ication under Section 391 Cr.P.C. that had been moved before the learned Appellate Court for seeking permission to lead additional evidence in the appeal. By way of additional evidence, the petitioner wanted to place 023 moved by him before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Fatehgarh Sahib and the original postal receipt. As the said application had been filed by the petitioner himself before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Fatehgarh Sahib, so it was very much within his knowledge at the time of adducing his evidence before the learned trial Court and had he exercised due diligence, he could have produced the evidence. Copy of application dated to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Fatehgarh Sahib has also been placed on record. Copy of report dated 18.2.2024 of Station House Officer, Police Station, Fatehgarh Sahib 5 has also been placed on record. In the said t, it has been held that the petitioner never appeared to participate in the investigation. It was further held that the petitioner had filed the application proved to be a case of money r had nothing to prove his case and it was to have no which is egotiable Instruments GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.09.24 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-1688 7. Appellate Court does not suffer from any may warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, dismissed. merits of the appeal pending before the learned Appellate Court. 8. 22.09.2025 gbs 1688-2025 -4 Thus, the impugned order dated Appellate Court does not suffer from any may warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, d. However, nothing expressed herein shall have any bearing on the merits of the appeal pending before the learned Appellate Court. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 22.09.2025 Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether reportable? 4- order dated 27.3.2025 passed by the lower patent illegality or infirmity which may warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the present petition is However, nothing expressed herein shall have any bearing on the merits of the appeal pending before the learned Appellate Court. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (SUKHVINDER KAUR) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? : Yes/No : Yes/No 27.3.2025 passed by the lower illegality or infirmity which petition is However, nothing expressed herein shall have any bearing on the GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.09.24 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document