1 apl.244.11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. Criminal Application No. 244 of 2011 M/s. Unique Fabricators & anr. ....Applicants v/s. State of Maharashtra & anr. ....Respondents Ms. Mallika A. Ingale for the applicants. Mr. L.S. Waingankar for the respondent no.2. Mr. V.B. Konde Deshmukh-APP for the State. CORAM: B.R. GAVAI, J. 23rd June, 2011 PC: Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 1st March, 2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Misc. Application No. 2120/2010 in Criminal Appeal No. 486/2008 thereby rejecting the application filed by the present petitioner for additional evidence. 3. The respondent no.2 who was an employee of the petitioners had filed complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. The said complaint came to be allowed and the applicants were convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 4,80,000/- each. Being aggrieved thereby an appeal has been preferred by the petitioner before the learned Appellate Court. During the pendency of the appeal, an application came to be filed for permission to 2 apl.244.11.sxw adduce additional evidence. According to the petitioners they had obtained copies of their account maintained with Development Credit Bank Ltd. for the relevant period. According to the petitioners, the statement had shown that there was sufficient balance in the said account and there was no entry regarding the presentation of the said cheque for clearance. In this premises, the applicants had prayed for allowing them to adduce additional evidence by summoning the concerned Bank official. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that though the said statements were with the earlier Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, inadvertently the earlier Counsel did not lead the evidence with regard to the Statement of Account of the petitioner with the aforesaid Bank. It is submitted that it is in the interest of justice that applicant be allowed to lead the evidence. 5. The learned Counsel for the respondent no.2 vehemently opposes the petition. He submits that application itself was not tenable and as such rightly rejected by the learned trial Court. 6. It can be seen that the statement pertaining to the account of the petitioners with the Bank will have material bearing on the case in question. In any case the parties should not be made to suffer on account of lapse on the part of his Counsel. It is in the interest of justice that party should be permitted to lead the evidence, which it finds vital for its case. Insofar as prejudice which is caused to the respondent no.2-Complainant is concerned, the same can be compensated by saddling cost. 7. In the result, the Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (ii) and (iii). However, this shall be subject to cost which are quantified at Rs. 15,000/-. The cost be deposited before the Appellate Court within a period of 3 apl.244.11.sxw two weeks from today. On deposit of the cost, the respondent no.2- Complainant would be at liberty to withdraw the same. (B.R. GAVAI, J)