Sandeep Singh v. State of Punjab and Another

IN

Whether only oper Pronounced or the Sandeep Singh State of Punjab a

CORAM : HON

Present: Mr

Mr

Mr

Mr

Mr MANDEEP PA

1.

Pet quashing of the Section 391 Cr. appeal bearing Singh versus La Taran, arising o filed under Sec learned Judicial stands dismissed

2.

No. 2 under Sec

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA -.-

CR

Re

Pro

Up rative part of the judgment is e full judgment is pronounced:

VERSUS and Another

N'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDE . Amit Arora, Advocate for the pe . Hardeep Hans, AAG Punjab. . Karnail Singh Ahhi, Advocate . Rupinder Singh, Advocate and . Anil Bhateja, Advocate for respo -.- ANNU J. (Oral) tition under Section 482 of the e orders dated 24.04.2024, wh .P.C. for leading additional evid No. CRA/156/2019 dated 10th akhbir Singh before the learned out of complaint bearing No. N ction 138 of the Negotiable Ins Magistrate Ist Class, Tarn Taran d by the learned Additional Sessi e present proceedings arise out ction 138 of the Negotiable Instru JAB AND HARYANA ARH RM-M-26869-2024 (O&M) served on:-12.02.2026 onounced on:- 13.02.2026 ploaded on:-16.02.2026 operative part/full judgment

....Petitioner ....Respondents EEP PANNU etitioner. ondent No.2 e Code of Criminal Procedure hereby the application filed un dence by the petitioner in crimi December 2019 titled as Sand d Additional Sessions Judge, T NACT/134/2018 dated 13.04.20 struments Act and decided by n vide judgment dated 18.11. 20 ions Judge, Tarn Taran. of a complaint filed by respond uments Act against the petitione

for nder inal deep Tarn 019, dent

was alleged tha their land to t However, the sa petitioner agreed post-dated cheq dated 20.02.201 encashment but service of lega payment within complaint No. No. 2.

3.

dated 18.11.201 Act. Feeling agg preferred an ap Additional Sessi

4.

Du additional evide dated 15.01.20 certified copies the said witnes defence. at the petitioner and his wife had the complainant on 17.09.201 ale deed was not executed, lead d to pay a sum of ₹55,00,000/- t ques. In discharge of the said lia 18 for ₹15,00,000/- drawn on t was dishonoured with the r al notice dated 23.03.2018 call n the statutory period, no paym NACT/134/2018 dated 13.04.2 e petitioner was convicted by th 9 for the offence under Section grieved against the said judgme ppeal, which is presently pendin ions Judge, Tarn Taran. uring the pendency of the said der Section 391 Cr.P.C. prayin ence, including placing on rec 18, inquiry report bearing No of statements of Daljit Singh an sses along with the concerned d entered into an agreement to 6 and possession was deliver ding to a compromise whereby to the complainant and issued th ability, cheque bearing No. 0000 n HDFC Bank was presented remarks "Stop Payment." Desp ling upon the petitioner to m ment was made, and consequen 2018 was instituted by respond e learned trial Court vide judgm 138 of the Negotiable Instrume ent of conviction, respondent No ng adjudication before the learn appeal, the petitioner preferred ng therein for permission to l ord the attested copy of affida o. 644-5A dated 20.07.2020 a nd Bikramjit Singh, and to exam police official in support of

sell red. hree for pite make ntly, dent ment ents o. 2 ned d an ead avit mine

5.

Ho dismissed by th order dated 24.0

6.

Lea dated 24.04.202 dismissing the contrary to the additional evide the learned trial Negotiable Instr conviction.

7.

It i petitioner move lead additional

15.01.2018, inq copies of statem witnesses along adjudication of t after the convic trial.

8.

application on appreciating tha ends of justice a judgment of the wever, the said application he learned Additional Sessions

04.2024, which is under challeng arned counsel for the petitioner 24 passed by the learned Addi application under Section 391 e settled principles governing ence. It is submitted that the pe l Court vide judgment dated 18 ruments Act and has already pr is further contended that during ed an application under Section evidence by producing the quiry report bearing No. 644-5 ments of Daljit Singh and Bikram g with the concerned police off the matter. It is argued that the s tion of the petitioner and, there e petitioner submits that the lea untenable grounds of delay at the power under Section 391 and to prevent failure of justice. e Hon'ble Supreme Court in Aj under Section 391 Cr.P.C. w Judge, Tarn Taran vide impugn ge in the present petition. r contends that the impugned or itional Sessions Judge, Tarn Ta 1 Cr.P.C. is illegal, arbitrary a the exercise of power for tak etitioner was wrongly convicted

8.11.2019 under Section 138 of referred an appeal against the s g the pendency of the appeal, 391 Cr.P.C. seeking permission attested copy of affidavit da 5A dated 20.07.2020 and certif mjit Singh, and to examine the s fficial, which are essential for j said documents came into existe fore, could not be produced dur arned appellate Court dismissed and alleged negligence, with 1 Cr.P.C. is meant to subserve Reliance has been placed upon jitsinh Chehuji Rathod vs State

ned rder aran king d by said n to fied said just nce ring hout

Gujarat and an contend that add from producing stage and its no prayed that the Cr.P.C. be allow

9.

Per proceedings and unexplained del was filed in 20 moved only on Sessions Judge for in the presen

10.

Bef notice the prov Appellate Court to be taken, if it mandates that re the Appellate C Session. The o appropriate case Cr.P.C. is to be course. It is no improve upon it nother, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 7 ditional evidence can be permit g the same earlier or where such on-consideration would result in impugned order be set aside and wed. r contra, learned counsel for res der Section 391 Cr.P.C. is nothi d delay the disposal of the appe lay of about two years in moving 019 whereas the application fo n 04.10.2022. It is thus conte has rightly dismissed the applic nt petition. fore adverting to the rival sub visions of Section 391 Cr.P.C. S t, while dealing with any appeal, t considers such additional evide easons are to be recorded and su Court itself or directed to be ta object of the provision is to es. However, it is well settled exercised sparingly and with cir ot intended to fill up lacunae i ts case after having had a full opp 77, 2024(1) RCR (criminal) 804 tted where the party was preven h evidence came to light at a la n miscarriage of justice. It is t d the application under Section 3 spondent No. 2 has argued that ing but an attempt to prolong eal. It is submitted that there is g the said application, as the app r leading additional evidence w ended that the learned Additio cation and no interference is cal missions, it would be apposite Section 391 Cr.P.C. empowers to take further evidence or direc ence to be necessary. The provis uch evidence may either be taken aken by a Magistrate or Court subserve the ends of justice that the power under Section 3 rcumspection and not as a matter in the case or to allow a party portunity before the trial Court.

4 to nted ater thus s an peal onal lled e to ct it sion n by t of in r of

11.

In Court vide judg pending adjudic The application however, moved years from the f

12.

dated 15.01.20 statements of D dated 15.01.201 explanation has trial Court desp

20.07.2020 and proceedings init have a direct be Negotiable Instr

13.

stolen and that t much available opportunity to Cr.P.C. cannot b points in the cas dismissing the a produced was e contemplated un the present case, the petitioner gment dated 18.11.2019. The app cation before the learned Addit under Section 391 Cr.P.C. seeki d only on 04.10.2022, i.e., after a filing of the appeal. e additional evidence sought to b 18, inquiry report bearing No Daljit Singh and Bikramjit Singh 18 was very much in existen been furnished as to why the pite adequate opportunity. As d the statements recorded in th tiated after the conviction of the earing on the ingredients of the ruments Act as adjudicated by th e plea raised by the petitioner the agreement to sell was execu e to him during the course lead defence evidence in suppo be invoked to enable a party to fi se after the conclusion of trial. T application, has rightly observed either available earlier or does nder Section 391 Cr.P.C. was convicted by the learned t peal was filed on 11.12.2019 and tional Sessions Judge, Tarn Tar ing to lead additional evidence w an unexplained delay of almost t be produced consists of an affida o. 644-5A dated 20.07.2020 a h. It is to be noted that the affida nce during the trial. No plausi same was not produced before regards the inquiry report da he year 2020, the same pertain e petitioner and do not, prima fa e offence under Section 138 of he trial Court. r that the cheque in question w uted without consideration was v of trial. The petitioner had ort of the said stand. Section 3 ill in omissions or to patch up w The learned Appellate Court, wh that the evidence now sought to not satisfy the test of necessity

trial d is ran. was, two avit avit ible n to cie, very full eak hile o be

14.

without any sati petitioner. The proceedings rat Court.

15.

It i bearing No. NA moved at the a Court. The ord Court, and the s

05.02.2025 hold impugned order similar, the petit

16.

On case, this Court dated 24.04.202 consonance wit Section 391 Cr.P

17.

Acc hereby dismisse

18.

Pen

February 13, 202 tripti

Whether

Whether e inordinate delay of nearly two isfactory explanation, further mi timing of the application ind ther than a genuine effort to p s also relevant to mention that in ACT/136/2018, a similar applicat appellate stage, which too was der dated 24.04.2024 passed th said petition was dismissed by a ding that there was no illegal r and the same was upheld. The tioner cannot seek a different vie n a cumulative consideration of t finds no illegality, perversity 24 passed by the learned Additio der Section 391 Cr.P.C. The im th the settled principles govern P.C. cordingly, finding no merit in ed on merits. nding application(s), if any, is/are

r speaking/non-speaking : Speakin r reportable

: Yes/N o years in moving the applicati ilitates against the bona fides of dicates an attempt to protract place material evidence before n another connected complaint c tion under Section 391 Cr.P.C. w dismissed by the lower Appell herein was challenged before t Coordinate Bench vide order da lity, perversity or infirmity in e factual matrix being substantia ew in the present matter. the facts and circumstances of or jurisdictional error in the or onal Sessions Judge dismissing mpugned order has been passed ning the exercise of power un the present petition, the same disposed of.

(MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE ng

ion, case late this ally rder d in nder