REEMA SAINI 2026.07.22 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh 2 CRR-1891 of 2022 (O&M) collusion and in connivance with each other, executed forged agreement to sell dated 22.09.2007 showing payment of Rs. 70 lacs to the complainant as earnest money. However, Shamsher Singh, was never authorised by her to sell the entire land being being her power of attorney. From 18.09.2007 to 28.09.2007 Shamsher Singh was admitted in Apollo Hospital, Ludhiana, as indoor patient, in state of unconsciousness and he died in the hospital on 28.09.2007. Shamsher Singh, complainant’s husband was neither physically nor mentally fit for executing any document. Witnesses of the document, in connivance with the accused, executed forged and false agreement to sell dated 22.09.2007 showing sale of the property of complainant through her power of attorney in favour of Boota Singh and Paramjit Singh. The police registered a case under Sections 379, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 511 read with Section 120-B IPC. On completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court. 3. Trial was conducted by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moga, who vide his judgment dated 18.04.2017 acquitted the accused of the charges under Sections 120-B, 379, 465, 467, 420 read with Section 511, 468, 471 IPC. 4. One Kamaljit Singh Khosa son of Bhaktaur Singh, resident of village Khosa Randhir, now resident of H. No.548, Civil Lines, Dutt Road, Moga, filed an appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C., challenging the judgment of acquittal dated 18.04.2017, vide which, accused (petitioners before this Court) were acquitted. During pendency of the appeal, an application under Section 391 Cr.P.C. was moved seeking permission to produce following documents: REEMA SAINI 2026.07.22 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh 3 CRR-1891 of 2022 (O&M) (i) Certified copy of plaint titled as ‘Boota Singh vs. Paramjit Kaur etc.’ (ii) Certified copy of above said case; (iii) Certified copy of Replication; (iv) Certified copy of Application U/O 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC; (v) Certified copy of reply of Application U/O 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC; (vi) Certified copy of order of application U/O 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC dated 06.08.2008 passed by Sh. Tarsem Nangla, the then Civil Judge (SD) Moga. 5. The application was allowed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Moga, vide impugned order dated 12.07.2022. This order has been challenged by way of revision petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order was not sustainable in the eyes of law and was liable to be set aside. The documents sought to be produced in additional evidence were very much in the knowledge of respondent No.2 and were also available with him but were never produced before the Trial Court. At appellate stage, respondent No.2 could not be permitted to prove the documents in additional evidence. It was urged that learned Appellate Court failed to appreciate that appeal against acquittal of petitioners could be preferred only by the victim. Complainant Paramjit Kaur never chose to file any appeal against the judgment of acquittal. The appeal preferred by Kamaljit Singh who was only a witness in the trial, was not maintainable and on this sole ground, the application ought to have been declined. The application under Section 391 Cr.P.C. filed by him was also not maintainable. It was urged that the power under Section 391 Cr.P.C. could be exercised sparingly, only to prevent failure of justice. Impugned order dated 12.07.2022 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Moga was thus liable to be set aside. REEMA SAINI 2026.07.22 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh 4 CRR-1891 of 2022 (O&M) 7. Learned State counsel has filed short reply by way of affidavit of Gursharanjit Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police (City) Moga, District Moga. 8. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 supports the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Moga, arguing that the documents sought to be produced by respondent No.2 were relevant for just decision of the case. The case revolved around two documents i.e. power of attorney executed by Paramjit Kaur in favour of Shamsher Singh Khosa and original agreement to sell, which were fabricated by the petitioners and used by them in Civil suit titled ‘‘Boota Singh Versus Paramjit Kaur’’. The documents were in possession of the petitioners, who filed the Civil Suit. Certified copies of the pleadings in the Civil Suit would enable the Court to decide that the agreement to sell and power of attorney were fabricated. He, thus, prayed for dismissal of the petition. 9. Petitioners, faced trial in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moga, on the allegations that they prepared a forged and fabricated agreement to sell dated 22.09.2007 allegedly executed by Shamsher Singh Khosa as power of attorney of complainant Paramjit Kaur Gill. Prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses in the case. The two documents i.e. power of attorney dated 27.02.2006 allegedly executed by Paramjit Kaur in favour of Shamsher Singh and agreement to sell dated 22.09.2007 were not produced in the Court. The prosecution failed to recover the original power of attorney. Only photocopy of the agreement to sell dated 22.09.2007 was produced on which account, petitioners were acquitted of the charges. REEMA SAINI 2026.07.22 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh 5 CRR-1891 of 2022 (O&M) 10. Following observations of Hon’ble Apex Court in ‘Ajitsinh Chehuji Rathod vs. State of Gujarat & Anr.’, 2024(4) SCC 453, 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 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.” 11. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘State of ‘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 has 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 grounds, that there would be a failure of justice without the additional evidence being taken on record. However, once this condition is satisfied, there is no restriction on the kind of evidence received, which may be formal or substantial.” 12. The documents sought to be brought on record are not the original agreement to sell dated 22.09.2007 or the power of attorney which were the foundation of prosecution case in FIR No.52 dated 02.05.2008. Rather, respondent No.2 sought to bring on record certified copies of the pleadings in civil suit filed by petitioner against Paramjit Kaur, on the basis REEMA SAINI 2026.07.22 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh 6 CRR-1891 of 2022 (O&M) of agreement to sell dated 22.09.2007. It is claimed that in that civil suit, petitioners had admitted that the alleged agreement to sell dated 22.09.2007 was executed in their favour by Shamsher Singh. The application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 in the civil suit was decided by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Moga on 06.08.2028, wherein learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Moga gave a finding that agreement to sell seemed to be forged. 13. The interim order passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Moga, in an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, expressing opinion that the agreement was forged is not relevant for determination of the appeal wherein prosecution was required to lead independent evidence to prove the commission of offence. The pleadings in the civil suit filed by the petitioners are equally irrelevant for determination of the appeal. The documents sought to be produced are not documents, in the absence of which, failure of justice would occasion. It is note worthy that the appeal pending before learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Moga, has not even been filed by the complainant. Whether the appeal filed by witness Kamaljit Singh Khosa under Section 372 Cr.P.C. would be maintainable is also a question which would require determination. Learned Appellate Court has allowed the application mechanically, without appreciating the scope and object of Section 391 Cr.P.C. The impugned order passed by learned Additioinal Sessions Judge, Moga is unsustainable in law as well as on facts. 14. The revision petition is accordingly allowed. Order dated 12.07.2022 of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Moga is hereby set aside. Learned Appellate Court is directed to proceed further in the appeal, in accordance with law. REEMA SAINI 2026.07.22 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh 7 CRR-1891 of 2022 (O&M) All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of. (SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL) JUDGE 20.07.2026 reema Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No REEMA SAINI 2026.07.22 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh