Virender Negi vs. Surjeet Chauhan

Held

The High Court dismissed the appellant's application to adduce additional evidence. The Court referred to Supreme Court judgments in State of Rajasthan v. Asharam, Sukhjeet Singh v. State of U.P., H.N. Jagadeesh v. R. Rajeshwari, Rajvinder Singh v. State of Haryana, and Ajitsinh Chehuji Rathod v. State of Gujarat. The Court held that the power under Section 391 of the Cr.P.C. is to be exercised judiciously and is more restricted than the power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. It can be used to secure the ends of justice but not to fill up lacunae or for a retrial, especially when the party had sufficient opportunity to produce the evidence earlier. The Court noted that the GST registration certificate (valid from 01.07.2017) and the UCO Bank certificate were in existence before the complaint was filed in 2020 and could have been obtained by the learned trial court. The appellant failed to provide any reason for not producing these documents earlier. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that Section 142(1)(a) of the NI Act mandates that only the payee or holder in due course can file a complaint, and the appellant was required to prove this status from the outset. Allowing the production of these documents at this stage would cause serious prejudice to the respondent by filling up the lacuna identified by the appellate court. Therefore, the application was dismissed.

Facts

The appellant, Virender Negi, filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the respondent, Surjeet Chauhan, for a dishonoured cheque of ₹36,000/- issued in December 2019 for the purchase of cement. The trial court convicted the respondent. However, the appellate court set aside the conviction, finding that the appellant failed to establish his connection to 'Hind Construction', the entity in whose favour the cheque was issued. The appellant then filed an application before the High Court under Section 528 read with Section 432 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking to adduce additional evidence, specifically a UCO Bank certificate and a GST registration certificate, to prove his proprietorship of Hind Construction. The respondent opposed the application, arguing it was belated and an abuse of process.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court, in its appellate jurisdiction, can permit the adduction of additional evidence under Section 391 of the Cr.P.C. to establish the appellant's proprietorship of 'Hind Construction' when such evidence was not produced before the trial court or the appellate court. This issue turns on the interpretation and application of Section 391 of the Cr.P.C. and the principles laid down in various Supreme Court judgments concerning the scope of appellate powers to take additional evidence. Petitioner's arguments: The appellant contended that the issue of his connection to Hind Construction was not raised before the trial court, and the appellate court's decision was based on this technical ground. The additional documents are necessary to establish this connection, and their production would not prejudice the respondent. The appellant relied on the principle that justice should not be denied on technicalities and that the court has the power to ensure a just decision. Respondent's arguments: The respondent argued that a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act can only be filed by the payee or holder in due course, and the appellant failed to prove this status. The respondent asserted that the additional evidence was sought to fill a lacuna in the appellant's case, which would cause prejudice. The respondent relied on the principle that parties cannot be allowed to fill up lacunae and that the appellate court's powers are restricted.