1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.56 OF 2010 Vilas s/o Sahebrao Gavali ... PETITIONER VERSUS Bandu s/o Eknathrao Takte ... RESPONDENT ..... Mr. C.V. Joshi, Advocate holding for Mr. S.P. Tilve, Advocate for petitioner ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATED : 17th March, 2010 ORAL ORDER: 1. The present criminal revision application is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission itself. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner has preferred the present revision application requesting for issuance of directions to the lower appellate Court i.e. Additional Sessions Judge-4 at Aurangabad to record the additional evidence in appeal and prayed that thereafter judgment be pronounced. 2 3. At the outset, the petitioner herein has challenged the order passed below Exhibit 25 in Criminal Appeal No. 84/2005 on 30.1.2010 by learned Additional Sessions Judge-4, Aurangabad, rejecting the application of the petitioner (Exhibit 25) with a prayer to allow him to adduce the additional evidence under Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. The petitioner, who is the original accused in the case bearing S.C.C. No.593/2003 filed by the complainant Bandu Eknath Take under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, wherein he was convicted by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gangapur and was sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.5000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month, and the said conviction and sentence was challenged by the petitioner/ accused in Criminal Appeal No.84/2005 before learned Additional Sessions Judge-4, Aurangabad and the application (Exhibit 25) came to be preferred by the petitioner/ accused in the said appeal on 22.1.2010 with a request to adduce the additional evidence and same was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-4, Aurangabad by order passed on 30.1.2010, which is impugned in the present revision application. 3 5. It appears from the contents of the impugned order dated 30.1.2010 that the petitioner had earlier preferred an application (Exhibit 19) before learned Additional Sessions Judge-4, Aurangabad with a prayer to remand of the case and seeking permission to adduce additional evidence, but same was already rejected by him on 3.3.2008, against which the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision Application No.71/2008, but same was also dismissed by this Court on 11.4.2008 confirming the said order of rejection, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-4, Aurangabad, but again the petitioner herein has preferred another application i.e. (Exhibit 25) by specifying Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for leading additional evidence at the appellate stage. 6. Considering the the said observations and also considering the position that the petitioner was unable to point out the purpose, propriety and necessity to adduce the additional evidence, I am of the view that the learned Additional Sessions Judge-4, Aurangabad has rightly rejected the said application. Moreover, the sight cannot be lost of the observations made by learned Additional Sessions Judge-4, Aurangabad that the petitioner attempted to delay the matter by preferring applications one after another, and such practice is required to be deprecated. 4 7. In the circumstances, on perusal of othe contents of the impugned order dated 30.1.2010, it is implicitly clear that there is no perversity and illegality therein while rejecting the application of the petitioner at Exhibit 25 to adduce the additional evidence and, therefore, no interference therein is warranted in the revisional jurisdiction. 8. In the result, present Criminal Revision Application being sans merits, stands dismissed. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) fmp/crra56.10