Inderjit Kaur vs. Amarjit Singh

Facts

The petitioner, Inderjit Kaur, was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, by the Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana, and sentenced to two years imprisonment and a compensation of ₹1,50,000/-. An appeal was filed before the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana. During the appeal, the petitioner filed applications under Section 311 and Section 391 of the Cr.P.C. to summon a GST official and relevant records. The petitioner contended that a bill dated 26.06.2017 was shown in GST returns, while the GST number was issued in July 2017, suggesting cheating. The petitioner argued that this point could not be adequately raised before the Trial Court. The Additional Sessions Judge dismissed both applications. 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 observed that a similar application had been dismissed by the Trial Court. Crucially, the impugned order noted that the complainant was not confronted with the GST document in question when he entered the witness box before the Trial Court. Therefore, the Court found no illegality or infirmity in the Additional Sessions Judge's order dismissing the applications. The principle derived is that appellate courts will not allow additional evidence under Section 391 Cr.P.C. if the evidence was not confronted to the witness at the trial stage and a similar application was already rejected by the trial court, especially when the evidence sought to be produced relates to a point not raised during the trial.

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 records, thereby preventing the petitioner from adducing evidence regarding alleged discrepancies in GST returns? 2. Whether the Additional Sessions Judge erred in dismissing the petitioner's application under Section 391 Cr.P.C. for leading additional evidence before the appellate court, specifically concerning the GST returns and cross-examination of the complainant on this point? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the applications under Section 311 and 391 Cr.P.C. were wrongly dismissed. She contended that the parties had business transactions and the cheque was issued as security. The petitioner sought one opportunity to present her defence by examining the GST official. She relied on Sections 311 and 391 Cr.P.C. to support her right to present evidence. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments from the respondent (complainant/revenue). However, the Court's reasoning implies that the respondent's position, as accepted by the lower appellate court, was that the petitioner had not confronted the complainant with the GST document before the trial court and that a similar application was dismissed by the trial court.