IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.2955 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: November 28, 2011 Jaswant Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.I.P.S.Kohli, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. The prayer of the petitioner for leading additional evidence at appellate stage under Section 391 Cr.P.C. has been declined. The petitioner stands convicted for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, against which he has filed an appeal. The petitioner moved an application at the appellate stage for examining handwriting expert to prove the writing in body of cheques and also to place on record the copy of the complaint/ judgment of another complaint arising from Cheques No.033977 and 033976. As per the counsel for the petitioner, examination of handwriting expert is very necessary to prove that the cheque was not filled in by the appellant-accused and there is a difference of handwriting in filling the amount in words and amount in figures in the disputed cheques. Counsel for the complainant, however, has contended that there would not be any requirement of examining the handwriting expert as writing work on the cheques in English was Criminal Revision No.2955 of 2011 (O&M) : 2 : done by the complainant himself in the presence of the accused and the amount mentioned in figures in the handwriting of the accused. Thus, the aspect of difference in writing stood already admitted by the complainant and accordingly there is hardly any need to examine a handwriting expert to prove this fact. Even otherwise, leading of additional evidence at the appellate stage is to be governed by the provisions of Section 391 Cr.P.C., where it is in the discretion of the court to see in case any additional evidence is essential in the interest of justice and for this purpose, the court has to record reasons in this regard. The view taken by the Appellate Court is just and reasonable and would not call for any interference. Dismissed. November 28, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE