Inderjit Kaur vs. Amarjit Singh

Facts

The petitioner, Inderjit Kaur, was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, by a Judicial Magistrate and sentenced to two years imprisonment and a compensation of ₹1,50,000/-. She appealed this conviction before the Additional Sessions Judge. During the appeal, she filed applications under Section 311 Cr.P.C. and Section 391 Cr.P.C. to summon a GST official and relevant records. She argued that a bill dated 26.06.2017 was shown in GST returns, but her GST number was issued in July 2017, suggesting potential cheating. She also claimed inadvertent failure to produce documents and cross-examine the complainant on this point before the trial court. Both applications were dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, leading to the present petition before the High Court.

Held

The High Court held that the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable before an appellate court. Regarding the application under Section 391 Cr.P.C., the Court noted that the Appellate Court has the power to take additional evidence only if it deems it necessary. The Court found that a similar application had been dismissed by the Trial Court and, crucially, that the complainant was not confronted with any document pertaining to GST when he entered the witness box. Since the document the petitioner wished to prove through the GST official was not confronted to the complainant during the trial, the Court found no case made out to summon the GST official. Therefore, the High Court found no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge and dismissed the petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Additional Sessions Judge erred in dismissing the petitioner's application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to summon a GST official and records, considering the alleged discrepancy in GST return dates and the issuance of the GST number? (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning the admissibility and relevance of evidence at the appellate stage). 2. Whether the Additional Sessions Judge erred in dismissing the petitioner's application under Section 391 Cr.P.C. to adduce additional evidence, specifically summoning a GST official and records, to prove her defence regarding the GST return discrepancy? (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning the appellate court's power to take additional evidence). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the applications under Sections 311 and 391 Cr.P.C. were wrongly dismissed. She argued that the parties had business transactions and the cheque was issued as security. She sought one opportunity to present her defence by examining the GST official. Revenue's arguments: The judgment records no specific arguments from the respondent (complainant). However, the Court's reasoning implies that the respondent likely relied on the lower courts' findings.