CRR/717/2026 of KRISHAN KUMAR Vs SANJEEV KUMAR SINGLA AND OTHERS on 16 July 2026

1. placing on compliance

2.

3. record, subj CRR-717-2

1. 528 BNSS Additional 2019 titled application 2026 (O&M) HE PUNJAB AND HARYANA CHANDIGARH

Dat umar

V/S umar Singla and others

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHA Mr. Karnesh Verma, Advocate

**** SINGH NAGPAL, J. 75-2026 Application under Section 528 record the application filed un of order dated 28.04.2026 of thi Allowed. The documents (Annexures P ject to just exceptions.

This revision petition under Se has been filed assailing order d Sessions Judge, Patiala in Crim d ‘Krishan Kumar vs. San filed by the petitioner under Sec

A HIGH COURT AT H CRR-717-2026 (O&M) te of decision: 16.07.2026

…Petitioner

…Respondents ALINI SINGH NAGPAL e for the petitioner. 8 BNSS has been moved for nder Section 432 BNSS in is Court. P-3 and P-4) are taken on ection 467 read with Section dated 17.12.2025 of learned minal Appeal No.CRA-426- njeev Kumar’ dismissing ction 432 BNS/391 Cr.P.C. KAPIL

2. appeal agai learned JMI Judge, Pati application statements o Patiala as documents a period of essential to the extent c application caused grav material ille

3.

4. Patiala vide under Secti 02.07.2019. Section affidavit/sta further cros dismissing Appellate C 2026 (O&M) Learned counsel for the petitio nst the judgment of conviction IC, Patiala was pending before ala. During pendency of the a under Section 391 Cr.P.C. of Punjab National Bank, Indus records of payments made demonstrated that substantial pa f time through banking channe determine whether any legally claimed in the complaint. The ap on hyper technical grounds. ve prejudice to the petitioner. Th egality, called for interference. Record perused. The petitioner, who was co e judgment of conviction dated ion 138 of Negotiable Instrume . An application was filed befor

Cr.P.C. on 25.02.2020 atements of account of petition ss examine Sanjeev Kumar Sing the application, following find Court:

oner submits that petitioner’s dated 28.05.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions appeal, petitioner moved an to place on record Bank Ind Bank and State Bank of to the complainant. The art payment were made over el and the documents were enforceable debt existed to ppellate court dismissed the Refusal of the application he order which suffered from onvicted by learned JMIC, 28.05.2019, in a complaint ents Act, filed an appeal on re the Appellate Court under for producing original ner and respondent and to gla in the complaint. While dings were recorded by the KAPIL

5. ‘Ajitsinh C 453, would 2026 (O&M) “…………However, he purpose would be served by p Moreover, in his statement un had taken the defence that between him and complainant the file to prove that there w between him and the com application is clearly against which had been taken by him d case as in his defence, he h between him and complainant court is unable to understand wants to prove the tenancy do statement of both the parties as filed by him, when he has den himself and complainant. So, merit in the present applicati hereby dismissed.” Following observations of Chehuji Rathod vs. State of Guj be relevant before examining th “9. At the outset, we ma settled by a catena of judgme that power to record additional he failed to specify what proving the said documents., nder Section 313 Cr.PC, he t there was no transaction and there is no document on was any money transaction mplainant. So, the present the defence of the accused during the trial of the present has denied any transaction t and now, at this stage, this d that for what purpose he documents, affidavit, account s well as the other complaint nied any transaction between this court does not find any ion and hence, the same is Hon’ble Apex Court in jarat & Anr.’, 2024(4) SCC he factual aspects:- may note that the law is well- ments rendered by this Court al evidence under section 391 KAPIL

6. ‘Rajasthan observed as 2026 (O&M) CrPC, 1973 should only be making such request was pre evidence in the trial despite du or that the facts giving rise to a later stage during pendency recording of such evidence may Further, the Hon’ble Supre vs. Asharam @ Ashumal’, 2 s under:- “14. This Court in Raje of West Bengal and Anothe opined that as additional evid various reasons, the legisla curtailing such discretion of touchstone of when the ad appellate stage may be tak impossibility or inability to pr absence, but whether there w without such additional eviden be exercised lightly but require be exercised only in cases wh on good and justifiable groun failure of justice without the taken on record. However, onc e exercised when the party evented from presenting the due diligence being exercised such prayer came to light at y of the appeal and that non- ay lead to failure of justice.” eme Court in ‘State of 2023 SCC Online SC 423, eswar Prasad Misra v. State er (1966) 1 SCR 178 has dence may be necessary for lature has refrained from f the appellate court. The additional evidence at the ken on record is not the ronounce the judgment in its would be a failure of justice nce. This discretion is not to es caution and care as it is to hen the appellate court finds, unds, that there would be a e additional evidence being ce this condition is satisfied, KAPIL

7. the case, or appears to under Sectio Defence tak

8. cross-exami examined a important m exercise of produced o 2026 (O&M) there is no restriction on the which may be formal or substa Applying the ratio of the decis rder passed by learned Addition be legal and valid. Statement on 313 Cr.P.C. has been placed ken by the petitioner is as under:- “The complaint filed by basis as the amount in que complainant himself as there accused with the complainant bread earner of the family and income to the family of the wrongly indulged the accused document on the file to prove transaction pending between th Hence. I am liable to be disch of justice.”

Concededly, petitioner was gr ination to the respondent/co as a witness and the plea that the material question to the compla f due diligence. The statements on record were available when kind of evidence received, antial.” sions to the factual matrix of nal Sessions Judge, Patiala, t of the petitioner recorded on record during arguments. - by complainant without any uestion has been filled by re is no transaction of the nt as the complainant is the d there is no other source of e accused. Complainant has d in wrong case as there is no e that there was any money he complainant and accused. harge acquittal in the interest ranted an opportunity to put omplainant when he was petitioner was unable to put ainant is not backed by the s of accounts sought to be n petitioner was given an KAPIL

opportunity produced. I that he had before the A the petition produced on for just and

9. Section 313 additional e is a clear at by seeking cannot be f the case, wh

10. illegality or

11.

12. of. 16.07.2026 Kapil

2026 (O&M) y to lead defence evidence b It was never the case of the petit made part payments to the respo Appellate Court nor before this er has been able to illustrate wh n record and why the statement proper decision of the case. Given the stance of the petiti 3 Cr.P.C., the Court is at a l evidence sought to be produced w ttempt on the part of the petition re-examination of the complain furthered. Allowing the applica hich pertains to the year 2016. Th There is no merit in the revis r perversity is perceived in the im Dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applica (SH

Whether speaking/reasone Whether reportable but the same were never tioner before the Trial Court ondent/complainant. Neither s Court, learned counsel for hich affidavit is sought to be ts of accounts are necessary oner in his statement under loss to appreciate how the would help his cause. There ner to reopen the entire case nant at appellate stage which ation would virtually reopen his cannot be permitted. sion petition as no apparent mpugned order. ation, if any, stands disposed HALINI SINGH NAGPAL) JUDGE ed : Yes/No : Yes/No

KAPIL