CRL RC/1859/2026 of Vijayalakshmi Vs S.Kuppusamy on 23 September 2026

ORDER

The revision challenges the judgment passed by the learned Sessions

CRL RC No. 1859 of 2026

Judge, Mahila Court, Chengalpattu in Crl.A.No.118 of 2024 dated 06.04.2026, setting aside the judgment of the learned Magistrate holding the respondent guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

2. The petitioner filed complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act alleging that the respondent issued cheque for Rs.8,50,000/- towards discharge of liability and since the cheque was dishonoured, he committed the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial Court found the respondent guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment of six months and to pay a fine amount of Rs.11 Lakhs as compensation to the complainant, in default, to undergo two months simple imprisonment.

3. The respondent preferred appeal in Crl.A.No.118 of 2024. After the submissions were completed, the respondent filed two applications, one in Crl.M.P.No.218 of 2025 to reopen the appeal for submitting written arguments and the other in Crl.M.P.No.29 of 2026 to receive additional documents, in the appeal. The learned Judge allowed both the applications finding that the documents sought to be marked by the respondent were relevant to the case. Thereafter, the learned Judge had allowed the appeal by holding that the documents filed by the respondent would reveal that the respondent has a fair

CRL RC No. 1859 of 2026

case and therefore it is desirable that the matter is remitted to the trial Court for fresh adjudication and consequently set aside the judgment and conviction.

4. The learned counsel for the complainant/ petitioner would submit that by the impugned judgment, the trial would be delayed further and even if the appellate Court found that the documents were relevant, the said documents could have been filed under Section 391 of Cr.P.C. as additional evidence and the impugned judgment remanding the case is unwarranted.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that since the learned Judge found that the documents are relevant, there is absolutely no infirmity in the impugned judgment directing the parties to adjudicate their claims afresh before the trial Court. He would further submit that pursuant to the impugned judgment, the records have already been transmitted to the learned Magistrate and the learned Magistrate also commenced the proceedings and therefore no interference is called for at this stage.

6. From the above narration of facts, it is clear that after the arguments were completed, the respondent sought for reopening of the case and had filed application seeking to receive documents in the above appeal. It was allowed by the learned Judge. The request for reopening of the case by the respondent and allowing of the said petition cannot be faulted as it is within the discretion

CRL RC No. 1859 of 2026

of the learned Judge.

7. However, the second application in Crl.M.P.No.29 of 2026 praying for receiving additional documents is not in accordance with the procedure. If the respondent had desired to let in additional evidence, he ought to have invoked Section 391 of Cr.P.C.

8. The documents even assuming are relevant have to be marked through witnesses. Be that as it may. This Court is of the view that since the respondent had not chosen to mark any of the documents before the trial Court, the judgment of conviction cannot be set aside, merely because he chose to file additional documents. The appellate Court can take additional evidence or direct the trial Court to take additional evidence. Setting aside the judgment of conviction is not the only option for that purpose.

9. However, since the learned Judge found that the documents produced by the respondent are relevant to the case, the respondent is permitted to file application under Section 391 of Cr.P.C. to adduce additional evidence and mark the documents that he desires to mark through any witness. The said application shall be made by the respondent, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is needless to say that the application to be filed by the respondent under Section 391 of Cr.P.C., would be

CRL RC No. 1859 of 2026

considered on merits by the learned Judge. The learned Judge may thereafter conclude the appeal as expeditiously as possible.

10. The impugned judgment dated 06.04.2026 passed in Crl.A.No.118 of 2024 is set aside and Crl.A.No.118 of 2024 is restored to file. This criminal revision case is allowed. Consequently, the connected criminal miscellaneous petition is closed. 23-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No pri To

1. The Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chengalpattu.

2. The Fast Track Court (at Magisterial Level), Alandur.

CRL RC No. 1859 of 2026

SUNDER MOHAN, J. pri CRL RC No. 1859 of 2026 And Crl.M.P.No.16234 of 2026 23-09-2026