Crl. Misc. No. M-23471 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-23471 of 2009 Date of Decision : August 25, 2009 Sanjeev Kumar Aggarwal and another .... Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH * * * Present : Ms. Sonia Jain , Advocate for Mr. Gaurav Mohunta, Advocate, for the petitioners. * * * AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) The present petition is for quashing of the order dated 11.08.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Fatehgarh Sahib (Annexure P-4), vide which the application moved under Section 391 Cr.P.C. by the petitioners for leading additional evidence has been dismissed. Counsel for the petitioners contends that as the Firm is a partnership Firm and the partners have time and again been changed, which resulted in having different partnership deeds during the period, therefore, the petitioners were not aware of which deed was the original deed of partnership, which they were required to produce before the trial Crl. Misc. No. M-23471 of 2009 2 Court and because of which, the said documents could not be produced before the trial Court. On that basis, she contends that the present application needs to be allowed so that the limited responsibility of the petitioners could be asserted before the learned Lower Appellate Court in their appeal, which they have preferred against the order passed by the learned trial Court, wherein the petitioners have been held guilty of the offence alleged to have been committed by them. Counsel for the petitioners, on the basis of these assertions, submits that only one opportunity may be granted to the petitioners to lead the additional evidence so that justice could be done to them. I have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. Para-4 of the application filed under Section 391 Cr.P.C., which has been placed on record, for leading additional evidence, reads as follows:- “4. That the original partnership deed of the firm has been lost, but one copy of the same is available with the bank which was deposited with the bank at the time of opening the account of firm with the bank.” The stand, which has now been taken by the petitioners before this Court is contrary to what has been taken by the petitioners before the Lower Appellate Court and the said stand in this Court is mentioned in para-8, which is reproduced hereinbelow:- “8. It is respectfully submitted here that since the petitioners are partners of a partnership firm, so therefore, during all these years many partners changed hands, to say, that old partners Crl. Misc. No. M-23471 of 2009 3 phased out of the said firm and in turn thereof new partners were inducted and thus the partnership deeds kept on changing/renewed and so thus the petitioners could not figure out as to which partnership deed they were required to produce as evidence before the learned trial Court. Now, that no new partners have been inducted in this said firms, so therefore, the petitioners by way of leading additional evidence want to produce the said partnership deed (Annexure P/1) so as to prove the extent of their liability for payment towards the complainant (though not admitted) by virtue of their conviction in the aforesaid case entailed by them vide judgment and order dated 24.4.2006 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib. “ This clearly shows that the petitioners are still not clear as to what stand they intend to take for pressing the application under Section 391 Cr.P.C. It appears that the reason for moving the application under Section 391 Cr.P.C. is only to delay the proceedings before the Lower Appellate Court. Order dated 11.08.2009, which is under challenge before this Court, deals with all the contentions, which have been raised by the petitioners in their application filed under Section 391 Cr.P.C. Para-7 of the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Fatehgarh Sahib, reads as follows:- “7. The relevant provisions in this regard are laid in Section 391 Cr.P.C. which state that if the Appellate Court thinks additional evidence to be necessary, it shall record reasons Crl. Misc. No. M-23471 of 2009 4 and may take such evidence...........The applicants/appellants have not stated any reason as to why this partnership deed could not be placed before the learned trial Court. It has simply been stated that original partnership deed of the firm has been lost and nothing has been pointed out even to show that whether such plea was raised before the learned trial Court or not and as to why said partnership deed could not be produced before the learned trial Court. It is strange that if the said partnership deed was necessary, why the accused did not talk of the same for about 6 years and such a long silence in this regard shows that the partnership deed was not necessary.” The order passed by the Lower Appellate Court is fully justified, which does not call for any interference by this Court. Dismissed. August 25, 2009 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) pj JUDGE