CRR-717-2026 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT 130 Krishan Kumar Sanjeev Kumar CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL Present: SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL, J. CRM-28375 1. placing on record the application filed under Section 432 BNSS compliance of order dated 28.04.2026 of this Court. 2. 3. record, subject to just exceptions. CRR-717-2026 1. 528 BNSS Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala in Criminal Appeal No.CRA 2019 titled application filed by the pe 2026 (O&M) IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision Krishan Kumar V/S Sanjeev Kumar Singla and others CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL Mr. Karnesh Verma, Advocate **** SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL, J. 28375-2026 Application under Section 528 BNSS has placing on record the application filed under Section 432 BNSS compliance of order dated 28.04.2026 of this Court. Allowed. The documents (Annexures P record, subject to just exceptions. 2026 (O&M) This revision petition under Section 528 BNSS has been filed assailing order dated 17.12.2025 of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala in Criminal Appeal No.CRA 2019 titled ‘Krishan Kumar vs. Sanjeev Kumar’ application filed by the petitioner under Section 432 BNS/391 Cr.P.C. 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CRR-717-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 16.07.2026 …Petitioner …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL Advocate for the petitioner. Application under Section 528 BNSS has been moved for placing on record the application filed under Section 432 BNSS in compliance of order dated 28.04.2026 of this Court. documents (Annexures P-3 and P-4) are taken on revision petition under Section 467 read with Section has been filed assailing order dated 17.12.2025 of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala in Criminal Appeal No.CRA-426- ‘Krishan Kumar vs. Sanjeev Kumar’ dismissing titioner under Section 432 BNS/391 Cr.P.C. KAPIL 2026.07.20 11:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-717-2026 2. appeal against the judgment learned JMIC Judge, Patiala. During pendency of the appeal, petitioner moved an application under Section 391 Cr.P.C. to place on record Bank statements of Punjab National Bank, Patiala as records of payment documents demonstrated that substantial part payment were made over a period of essential to determine whether any legally enforceable debt existed to the extent claimed in the application on hyper technical grounds. Refusal of the application caused grave prejudice to the petitioner material illegality, 3. 4. Patiala vide judgment of conviction dated 28.05.2019 under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act 02.07.2019. An application was filed before the Appellate Court unde Section 391 Cr.P.C. affidavit/statement further cross examine Sanjeev Kumar Singla in the complaint. dismissing the application, Appellate Court 2026 (O&M) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner’s appeal against the judgment of conviction learned JMIC, Patiala was pending before learned A Judge, Patiala. During pendency of the appeal, petitioner moved an application under Section 391 Cr.P.C. to place on record Bank statements of Punjab National Bank, IndusInd Bank and State Bank of Patiala as records of payments made to t documents demonstrated that substantial part payment were made over a period of time through banking channel and the documents were essential to determine whether any legally enforceable debt existed to extent claimed in the complaint. The appellate court dismissed the application on hyper technical grounds. Refusal of the application caused grave prejudice to the petitioner. The order which suffer material illegality, called for interference. Record perused. The petitioner, who was convicted by learned JMIC vide judgment of conviction dated 28.05.2019 under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act 02.07.2019. An application was filed before the Appellate Court unde 391 Cr.P.C. on 25.02.2020 affidavit/statements of account of petitioner and further cross examine Sanjeev Kumar Singla in the complaint. dismissing the application, following findings Appellate Court: 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner’s dated 28.05.2019 passed by was pending before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala. During pendency of the appeal, petitioner moved an application under Section 391 Cr.P.C. to place on record Bank IndusInd Bank and State Bank of made to the complainant. The documents demonstrated that substantial part payment were made over time through banking channel and the documents were essential to determine whether any legally enforceable debt existed to complaint. The appellate court dismissed the application on hyper technical grounds. Refusal of the application he order which suffered from he petitioner, who was convicted by learned JMIC, vide judgment of conviction dated 28.05.2019, in a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, filed an appeal on 02.07.2019. An application was filed before the Appellate Court under for producing original petitioner and respondent and to further cross examine Sanjeev Kumar Singla in the complaint. While following findings were recorded by the KAPIL 2026.07.20 11:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-717-2026 5. ‘Ajitsinh Chehuji Rathod vs. State of Gujarat & Anr.’, 2024(4) SCC 453, would be relevant before examining the factual aspects: 2026 (O&M) “…………However, he failed to specify what purpose would be served by proving the said documents., Moreover, in his statement under Section 313 Cr.PC, he had taken the defence that there was no transaction between him and complainant and there is no document on the file to prove that there was any money transaction between him and the complainant. So, the present application is clearly against the defence of the accused which had been taken by him during the trial of the present case as in his defence, he has denied any transaction between him and complainant and now, at this stage, this court is unable to understand that for what purpose he wants to prove the tenancy documents, statement of both the parties as well as the other complaint filed by him, when he has denied any transaction between himself and complainant. So, this court does not find any merit in the present application and hence, the same is hereby dismissed.” Following observations of tsinh Chehuji Rathod vs. State of Gujarat & Anr.’, 2024(4) SCC , would be relevant before examining the factual aspects: “9. At the outset, we may note that the law is well settled by a catena of judgments rendered by this Court that power to record additional evidence under section 391 3 However, he failed to specify what purpose would be served by proving the said documents., Moreover, in his statement under Section 313 Cr.PC, he that there was no transaction between him and complainant and there is no document on the file to prove that there was any money transaction between him and the complainant. So, the present application is clearly against the defence of the accused ad been taken by him during the trial of the present case as in his defence, he has denied any transaction between him and complainant and now, at this stage, this court is unable to understand that for what purpose he wants to prove the tenancy documents, affidavit, account statement of both the parties as well as the other complaint filed by him, when he has denied any transaction between himself and complainant. So, this court does not find any merit in the present application and hence, the same is of Hon’ble Apex Court in tsinh Chehuji Rathod vs. State of Gujarat & Anr.’, 2024(4) SCC , would be relevant before examining the factual aspects:- “9. At the outset, we may note that the law is well- d by a catena of judgments rendered by this Court that power to record additional evidence under section 391 KAPIL 2026.07.20 11:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-717-2026 6. ‘Rajasthan vs. Asharam @ Ashumal’, 2023 SCC Online SC 423 observed as under: 2026 (O&M) CrPC, 1973 should only be exercised when the party making such request was prevented from presenting the evidence in the trial despite due diligenc or that the facts giving rise to such prayer came to light at a later stage during pendency of the appeal and that non recording of such evidence may lead to failure of justice.” Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Rajasthan vs. Asharam @ Ashumal’, 2023 SCC Online SC 423 observed as under:- “14. This Court in Rajeswar Prasad Misra v. State of West Bengal and Another (1966) 1 SCR 178 opined that as additional evidence may be necessary for various reasons, the legislature has refrained from curtailing such discretion of the appellate court. The touchstone of when the additional evidence at the appellate stage may be taken on record is not the impossibility or inability to pronounce the judgment in its absence, but whether there would be a failure of justice without such additional evidence. This discretion is not to be exercised lightly but requires caution and care as it is to be exercised only in cases when the appellate court finds, on good and justifiable groun failure of justice without the additional evidence being taken on record. However, once this condition is satisfied, 4 CrPC, 1973 should only be exercised when the party making such request was prevented from presenting the evidence in the trial despite due diligence being exercised or that the facts giving rise to such prayer came to light at a later stage during pendency of the appeal and that non- recording of such evidence may lead to failure of justice.” Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘State of ‘Rajasthan vs. Asharam @ Ashumal’, 2023 SCC Online SC 423, Rajeswar Prasad Misra v. State of West Bengal and Another (1966) 1 SCR 178 has opined that as additional evidence may be necessary for gislature has refrained from curtailing such discretion of the appellate court. The touchstone of when the additional evidence at the appellate stage may be taken on record is not the impossibility or inability to pronounce the judgment in its whether there would be a failure of justice without such additional evidence. This discretion is not to be exercised lightly but requires caution and care as it is to be exercised only in cases when the appellate court finds, on good and justifiable grounds, that there would be a failure of justice without the additional evidence being taken on record. However, once this condition is satisfied, KAPIL 2026.07.20 11:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-717-2026 7. the case, order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, appears to be legal and valid. Statement of the petitioner recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has been placed on record Defence taken by the petitioner 8. cross-examination to the examined as a witness and the plea that important m exercise of due diligence. The statement produced on record were available when petitioner was given an 2026 (O&M) there is no restriction on the kind of evidence received, which may be formal or substantial.” Applying the ratio of the decisions to the factual matrix of the case, order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, appears to be legal and valid. Statement of the petitioner recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has been placed on record taken by the petitioner is as under:- “The complaint filed by complainant without any basis as the amount in question has been filled by complainant himself as there is no transaction of the accused with the complainant as the complainant is the bread earner of the family and there is no other s income to the family of the accused. Complainant has wrongly indulged the accused in wrong case as there is no document on the file to prove that there was any money transaction pending between the complainant and accused. Hence. I am liable to be discharge acquittal in the interest of justice.” Concededly, petitioner was granted an opportunity to put examination to the respondent/complainant when he was examined as a witness and the plea that the petitioner was unable to put important material question to the complainant is not exercise of due diligence. The statements produced on record were available when petitioner was given an 5 there is no restriction on the kind of evidence received, which may be formal or substantial.” ratio of the decisions to the factual matrix of the case, order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, appears to be legal and valid. Statement of the petitioner recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has been placed on record during arguments. - he complaint filed by complainant without any basis as the amount in question has been filled by complainant himself as there is no transaction of the accused with the complainant as the complainant is the bread earner of the family and there is no other source of income to the family of the accused. Complainant has wrongly indulged the accused in wrong case as there is no document on the file to prove that there was any money transaction pending between the complainant and accused. discharge acquittal in the interest Concededly, petitioner was granted an opportunity to put complainant when he was the petitioner was unable to put aterial question to the complainant is not backed by the s of accounts sought to be produced on record were available when petitioner was given an KAPIL 2026.07.20 11:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-717-2026 opportunity to lead defence evidence but the same were never produced. It was never the case of the petitioner before the Trial Court that he had made part before the Appellate Court nor before this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner produced on record and why the statements of for just and proper decision of the case. 9. Section 313 Cr.P.C., the Court is at additional evidence sought to be produced would help his cause. There is a clear attempt on the part of the petitioner to reopen the entire case by seeking re cannot be furthered. the case, which pertains to the year 2016 10. illegality or perversity is 11. 12. of. 16.07.2026 Kapil 2026 (O&M) opportunity to lead defence evidence but the same were never It was never the case of the petitioner before the Trial Court that he had made part payments to the respondent/complainant. before the Appellate Court nor before this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner has been able to illustrate which a produced on record and why the statements of for just and proper decision of the case. Given the stance of the petitioner in Section 313 Cr.P.C., the Court is at a loss to appreciate additional evidence sought to be produced would help his cause. There clear attempt on the part of the petitioner to reopen the entire case by seeking re-examination of the complainant at appellate stage which cannot be furthered. Allowing the application would the case, which pertains to the year 2016. This cannot be permitted There is no merit in the revision petition as no apparent illegality or perversity is perceived in the impugned Dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application, if any, stands disposed (SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL) .2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 6 opportunity to lead defence evidence but the same were never It was never the case of the petitioner before the Trial Court to the respondent/complainant. Neither before the Appellate Court nor before this Court, learned counsel for been able to illustrate which affidavit is sought to be produced on record and why the statements of accounts are necessary Given the stance of the petitioner in his statement under a loss to appreciate how the additional evidence sought to be produced would help his cause. There clear attempt on the part of the petitioner to reopen the entire case examination of the complainant at appellate stage which Allowing the application would virtually reopen his cannot be permitted. There is no merit in the revision petition as no apparent impugned order. Pending miscellaneous application, if any, stands disposed SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No : Yes/No KAPIL 2026.07.20 11:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document