IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated:- 08.07.2009 Coram:- The Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.REGUPATHI Crl.R.C. Nos.356 and 357 of 2008 and M.P. Nos.1 & 1 of 2008 N.P. Selvam ... Petitioner in both the Revision Cases. vs. R.Balashanmugam ... Respondent in both Crl.R.Cs. Criminal Revision Cases as against the Orders dated 27.02.2008 passed in Crl.M.P. No.49 of 2008 in C.A. No.207 of 2007 and Crl.M.P. No.50 of 2008 in C.A. No.208 of 2007 by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Erode. For petitioner :Mr.C.D.Johnson For respondent :Mr.C.S.Saravanan COMMON ORDER The petitioner herein initiated Proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before Judicial Magistrate No.1, Erode, as against the respondent/accused and the learned Magistrate decided the case against the accused, sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-. Challenging the orders of conviction and sentence, the respondent preferred Appeals in C.A. Nos.207 and 208 of 2007 before the Principal Sessions Judge, Erode. Pending Appeal, the petitioner filed Miscellaneous Petitions in Crl.M.P. Nos.49 and 50 of 2008 seeking the court to receive the Income Tax Returns for the relevant period as additional documentary evidence under Section 391 Cr.P.C. and such plea having been denied by orders dated 27.02.2008, challenging the same, the present petitions have been filed. 2. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that though the complainant/petitioner is not obligated to produce the Income Returns to substantiate the liability, during the course of trial, he offered to produce the I.T. Returns if the same is demanded and further, the respondent/accused had never taken steps for production of the same and in such circumstances, by way of abundant caution, the petitions to receive the I.T. Returns as additional documentary evidence came to be filed. Even though no prejudice would result to the accused due to reception of such document and further, the same would only lend support for better appreciation of the issue involved, the lower appelalte court, proceeding on a wrong footing, rejected the plea erroneously; hence, the orders impugned may be set aside. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/accused submits that the document in question is sought to be received as additional evidence at a belated stage only with a view to fill up the lacuna of the prosecution. 4. I have meticulously examined the materials available on record having regard to the submissions made on either side. It must be seen that it was the respondent/accused, who originally demanded for production of the Income Tax Returns, to substantiate the liability. Even in the grounds of appeal filed before the lower appellate court, the respondent/accused has taken a ground in this regard viz., ground No.3 to the effect, " The lower court not considers that the respondent failed to produce the income tax statement in connection with money dealing " . During the course of trial, though the petitioner/complainant was cross-examined in this regard, steps were not taken for production of the document. Only under such circumstances, the petitioner preferred the Miscellaneous Petitions to receive the Income Tax Returns for the relevant period as additional documentary evidence. That being so, the lower appellate court would have very R.REGUPATHI, J.
well received the document, and after giving sufficient opportunity to the other side to project their claim and points with reference to the same, proceeded with the appeal. But the lower appellate court misled itself on this aspect and on a perusal of the impugned orders, I am of the considered view that the reasons assigned cannot be sustained.
5. Consequently, the Criminal Revision Cases are allowed and the court below is directed to receive the Income-Tax Returns in question as additional evidence and decide the appeals in accordance with law. Since the appeals have been pending from 2007 onwards, learned District Judge is directed to dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
08.07.2009.
Index : yes / no.
Internet : yes / no.
JI.
To
The Principal Sessions Judge, Erode.
Common Order in Crl.R.C.
Nos.356 & 357/08.