IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1455 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision : 11.7.2011. Sudhir Kumar ...... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. Balram Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) This revision is directed against the order dated May 30th, 2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala whereby application filed by the prosecution under Section 391 of Code of Criminal Procedure for leading additional evidence before appellate Court, was allowed. 2. Facts. On the statement of Sudhir Kumar- petitioner, First Information Report No. 73 dated July 27th, 1998 was registered against Mohan Lal, Junior Engineer working in Telephone Department, Rajpur under Sections 7 and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. During trial, the petitioner did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile. As a result, the accused was acquitted. Later on, FIR No. 69 dated December 23rd, 2004 under Section 420 IPC was registered against the petitioner on the allegation that he defrauded the Government as he firstly complained against Mohan Lal, Junior Engineer and received a cash prize of Rs.25,000/- from the Government but subsequently during trial, he did not support the prosecution case as such he dishonestly deceived the Government. 3. The petitioner was tried and convicted under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala by judgment dated April 1st, 2010. He preferred an appeal. During the pendency of appeal, prosecution moved an application under Section 391 of Code of Criminal Procedure seeking permission Criminal Revision No. 1455 of 2011 (O&M) (2) to prove the statement made by the petitioner during trial in case bearing FIR No. 73 dated July 27th, 1998 which was allowed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the Court below has committed an error in allowing the application of the prosecution inasmuch as it has caused a great prejudice to the accused-petitioner and the prosecution has filled up the lacuna. 5. A perusal of the impugned order shows that certified copy of the statement of the petitioner recorded on May 22nd, 2003 wherein he did not support the prosecution is already on the record of the case. Not only that, the petitioner has admitted having made such statement. The additional evidence sought to be produced is very much necessary to advance the interest of justice. Once, a satisfaction is recorded by the Appellate Court that the additional evidence is necessary for effectual and complete adjudication of the controversy, this Court would not interfere. In the impugned order, no material illegality or irregularity is discernible. Hence, the petition is dismissed. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 11.7.2011. SN