Bhupendra Darro vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The petitioner, Bhupendra Darro, is challenging an order dated 10.03.2025 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kondagaon. This order rejected the petitioner's application under Section 432 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), to admit additional evidence during his criminal appeal. The original complaint was filed by Manish Surana (respondent No. 2) under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, alleging dishonor of a cheque for Rs. 16,00,000/-. The trial court convicted the petitioner, sentencing him to one year's imprisonment and a compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/-. The petitioner appealed this conviction. During the appeal, he sought to introduce GST receipts from Koytora Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. and a register containing bills and vouchers from 29.07.2017 to 27.01.2018, claiming these documents were kept safe and could not be produced during the trial. He argued these documents were crucial to demonstrate that the complainant used a blank cheque as security.

Held

The High Court dismissed the petition. The Court considered the facts and circumstances, the findings of the trial court, and the material on record. It noted that the petitioner had sufficient time to file the documents during the trial but failed to do so. The reason provided for non-production – that the documents were kept in safe custody and could not be filed – was not considered a sufficient reason by the Court. The Court found that the petitioner was attempting to fill a lacuna at the appellate stage. Therefore, the Court concluded that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had not committed any illegality or infirmity in passing the impugned order dated 10.03.2025. Consequently, no interference was required under Section 528 of the BNSS. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the learned Additional Sessions Judge erred in rejecting the petitioner's application under Section 432 of the BNSS for admitting additional evidence at the appellate stage, considering the relevance of the documents to the dispute and the petitioner's explanation for their non-production during the trial. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the rejected documents, including GST receipts and a register of bills and vouchers, were inadvertently not produced before the trial court due to being kept in safe custody. He argued these documents are relevant under Sections 40, 41, and 42 of the Indian Evidence Act and their absence would cause irreparable harm. He sought to quash the impugned order. Revenue's arguments: The State counsel opposed the petition, arguing that the charge sheet was filed in 2019 and the trial concluded in 2024, while the documents pertained to 2017-2018. This provided ample opportunity for the petitioner to produce them earlier. The State asserted that the petitioner's excuse for non-production lacked basis and the impugned order was well-merited, warranting dismissal of the petition.