CRL RC/1834/2026 of Tamizharasan Vs Ravi on 2 November 2026

ORDER

1. This Criminal Revision Case is filed to call for the records, relating to the order, dated 21.07.2026 passed in Crl.MP.No.2953 of 2025 in Crl.A.No.16 of 2024, by the Additional District and Sessions Court, Krishnagiri and to set aside the same.

2. The facts of the case are that the Revision Petitioner is the accused and the Respondent is the complainant. The Revision Petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court, in respect of dishonour of a cheque, bearing No.656763, dated 07.01.2019, for a sum of Rs.25,00,000/-, for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in STC.No.753 of 2018, to undergo six months Simple Imprisonment and to pay a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- as compensation, in default, to undergo, six months imprisonment. As against the same, the Revision Petitioner had filed an appeal in CA.No.16 of 2024, before the lower appellate court. The Revision Petitioner had filed Crl.MP.No.2953 of 2025, under Section 391 of Cr.PC (Section 432 of BNSS) to examine an additional witness, namely, Latha, before the lower appellate court. By the impugned order, dated 21.07.2026, the said application was dismissed. Hence, this Criminal Revision Case has been filed, by the Revision Petitioner/ accused, seeking the relief as stated above.

3. This Court heard Mr.C.Santhosh Kumar, the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner and Mr.M.S.Palaniswamy, the learned counsel for the Respondent and considered their submissions and also perused the entire materials placed on record.

4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner that since the examination of the proposed additional witnesses is vital and necessary to establish the true nature of transaction, source, purpose and the manner, in which the alleged liability was created or discharged, the lower appellate court ought to have allowed the application, seeking to examine the proposed additional witness and that the failure of the Revision Petitioner to examine the proposed additional witness before the Trial Court does not disentitle the Revision Petitioner to seek for examination under Section 391 of Cr.PC, during the appellate stage and that when a statute grants a right to appeal to an accused, he has the right to take steps and benefits of the power of the appellate court, to meet the ends of justice and hence, the impugned order is perverse and liable to be set aside.

5. It is the case of the Respondent that during the trial, the Revision Petitioner did not take any steps to summon or examine the proposed additional witness and that the Revision Petitioner, having failed to exercise his rights at the appropriate stage, cannot now seek to fill up the lacunae, by invoking Section 391 of Cr.PC (Section 432 of BNSS).

6. The learned counsel for the Respondent has further submitted that though, according to the Revision Petitioner, the cheque in question was stolen and later, it was misused, the Revision Petitioner did not deny the signature in the cheque in question and hence, the cheque in question was issued to legally enforceable debt. The learned counsel has further submitted that the Revision Petitioner is now attempting to fill up the lacunae, at the appellate stage, which is not permissible and is an abuse of process of law and hence, the lower appellate court is justified in dismissing the application, filed by the Revision Petitioner , seeking to examine the proposed additional witness.

7. At the outset, it is relevant to quote Section 432 of BNSS, 2023, as under:-

“432. Appellate Court may take further evidence or direct it to be taken:-

(1) In dealing with any appeal under this Chapter, the Appellate Court, if it thinks additional evidence to be necessary, shall record its reasons and may either take such evidence itself, or direct it to be taken by a Magistrate or, when the Appellate Court is a High Court, by a Court of Session or a Magistrate.

(2) When the additional evidence is taken by the Court of Session or the Magistrate, it or he shall certify such evidence to the Appellate Court, and such Court shall thereupon proceed to dispose of the appeal.

(3) The accused or his advocate shall have the right to be present when the additional evidence is taken.

(4) The taking of evidence under this section shall be subject to the provisions of Chapter XXV, as if it were an inquiry.”

8. Section 432 of BNSS, which corresponds to Section 391 of Cr.PC, deals with power of the Appellate Court to take further evidence. It is pertinent to note that the appellate Court can allow additional evidence under Section 391 of Cr.PC, only in exceptional circumstances and the same cannot be used merely to fill up lacuna, that might exist in the evidence. When an Appellate Court, dealing with any appeal under this Chapter, thinks additional evidence to be necessary, it shall record its reasons for doing so.

9. The Honourable Supreme Court, in the case of Ajitsinh Chehuji Rathod Vs. State of Gujarat and another (2024 Live Law SC 64), was pleased to observe that the power to record additional evidence at the appellate stage should not be exercised in a routine and casual manner and such a power can only be exercised, when non-recording of the evidence may lead to failure to justice. The Honourable Supreme Court was pleased to observe as under:- “At the outset, we may note that the law is well-settled by a catena of judgements rendered by this Court that power to record additional evidence under Section 391 CrPC should only be exercised when the party making such request was prevented from presenting the evidence in the trial despite due diligence being exercised or that the facts giving rise to such prayer came to light at a later stage during pendency of the appeal and that non recording of such evidence may lead to failure of justice.”

10. The power, to record additional evidence, should only be exercised, when a party making such request, was prevented from presenting the evidence in the trial, despite due diligence being exercised or that the facts giving rise to such prayer came to light at a later stage during the pendency of the appeal and that the non-recording of such evidence may lead to failure of justice.

11. In this case, on perusal of the records, it is seen that the lower appellate court had held that the Revision Petitioner had failed to show any fresh facts, compelling reasons, or exceptional circumstances that prevented him from examining the proposed additional witness, during the trial and hence, permitting the examination of the proposed additional witness at the belated stage, would amount to allowing the Revision Petitioner to fill up lacunae in his defence and would unnecessarily protract the appeal proceedings, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

12. The lower appellate court has also found that the Revision Petitioner had completely failed to explain why he could not examine the said proposed additional witness, as a defence witness, during the trial, despite sufficient opportunity was given to him and that since the Revision Petitioner had admitted his signature in question, the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act arises in favour of the complainant and that the defence now sought to be raised by examining the proposed additional witness is an after thought and only to prolong the appeal proceedings and evade the execution of the sentence, imposed on the Revision Petitioner, by the Trial Court.

13. The lower appellate court has ultimately held that Section 391 of Cr.PC (Section 432 of BNSS) is designed to prevent miscarriage of justice and not provide a second round of litigation to a negligent litigant to fill up the lacunae and accordingly, by the impugned order, the lower appellate court had rightly dismissed the petition, filed by the Revision Petitioner, seeking to examine the proposed additional witness.

14. Even before this Court, the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner is not able to point out any valid ground to examine the proposed additional witness. The Revision Petitioner is also not able to demonstrate that the facts, giving rise to such prayer, came to light, at a later stage during the pendency of the appeal and that the non-recording of such evidence may lead to failure of justice.

15. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the stage, at which the above petition came to be filed, this Court is of the view that there is no necessity for examining the proposed additional witness, as sought for by the Revision Petitioner and that the above petition came to be filed only to protract the appeal proceedings and pronouncement of judgement, by the lower appellate court, as much as possible and as such, the impugned order cannot be found fault with, as there is no infirmity or perversity in the impugned order, dismissing the Petition and that the Criminal Revision Case is devoid of merits and accordingly, the same is liable to be dismissed.

16. In the result, in view of the above said discussions and reasons and in the light of the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court, referred to above, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. The impugned order, dated 21.07.2026 passed in Crl.MP.No.2953 of 2025 in Crl.A.No.16 of 2024, by the Additional District and Sessions Court, Krishnagiri, is confirmed. There is no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected Crl.MP is closed. The appellate court is directed to decide the appeal, expeditiously, in accordance with law.

17. Let a copy of this order be sent to the lower appellate court, for its compliance and information, by the Registry, forthwith. 02-11-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No SRCM To

1. Additional District and Sessions Court, Krishnagiri

SHAMIM AHMED, J. SRCM CRL RC No. 1834 of 2026 02-11-2026