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 filed an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge. During the pendency of the appeal, she filed applications under Section 311 Cr.P.C. and Section 391 Cr.P.C. to summon a GST official and record related to a bill dated 26.06.2017, which she claimed was shown in GST returns. She argued that her GST number was issued in July 2017, suggesting potential cheating. She contended that she could not produce this document or cross-examine the complainant on this point before the Trial Court. Both applications were dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge. The petitioner then filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before the High Court challenging the dismissal order.

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. Crucially, it was observed that the document the petitioner wished to prove through the GST official was not even confronted to the complainant when he entered the witness box before the Trial Court. Given this, the Court found no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, which had dismissed both applications. The principle derived is that additional evidence in appeal under Section 391 Cr.P.C. should not be permitted if the evidence sought to be adduced was not put to the witness during trial, especially when the opportunity to do so was available and not availed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Additional Sessions Judge erred in dismissing the petitioner's application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for summoning a GST official and related records as additional evidence in an appeal against a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881? 2. Whether the Additional Sessions Judge erred in dismissing the petitioner's application under Section 391 Cr.P.C. for taking additional evidence, specifically regarding GST returns and a bill dated 26.06.2017, in an appeal against a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the applications were wrongly dismissed and that she should be granted an opportunity to present her defence by examining the GST official. She contended that the bill dated 26.06.2017, purportedly shown in GST returns, predated the issuance of her GST number in July 2017, indicating potential cheating. She claimed she could not inadvertently produce the document or cross-examine the complainant on this aspect before the Trial Court. Revenue/State's Arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments from the respondent (complainant) or the State. However, the High Court's reasoning implies that the respondent likely did not contest the petitioner's right to present this evidence, but the court found the applications themselves to be without merit based on the facts.