1 (Revn 501 of 2010) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.501 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 645 OF 2007 IN C.C.NO. 219 /SS/2004 Santosh Shekar Shetty ...Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. ...Respondents ----- Mr.M.V. Khatavkar for Applicant Mr.P.A. Pol -PP for the State Ms. Poonam Ankleshvaria for Respondent No.2 ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 22ND NOVEMBER, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant and the Respondent No.2 2. The Original Accused has filed this application challenging the order passed by the Appellate Court dated 15th September, 2010. By the said order, the Sessions Court was pleased to reject the application 2 (Revn 501 of 2010) filed by the Applicant herein under section 391 of the Cr.P.C. for leading an additional evidence. In the application, it was urged that the Complainant had written a letter to the Applicant dated 15.9.2005 in which he has admitted that he had opened the account in the Bharat Co-operative Bank and that he had realised his mistake. It was urged that inadvertently the said letter in which the Complainant had admitted his guilt could not be produced. 3. The Respondent No.2 had filed a complaint against the Applicant for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Trial Court was pleased to convict the Applicant and against the said order of conviction, he preferred an appeal in the Sessions Court. During pendency of the appeal, this application was filed for leading additional evidence. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant submits that an opportunity may be given to the Applicant to lead this evidence in the Sessions Court since this letter would establish his innocence. He submitted that a specific suggestion was made to the Complainant that by using forged application form he 3 (Revn 501 of 2010) had opened a bank account in Bharat Co-operative Bank and obtained a cheque book with the connivance of bank officials and, thereafter, had forged all those cheques and after the cheques were dishonoured, the complaint was filed by him under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He submitted that however, inadvertently the said letter could not be produced during the trial. 5. The said submission cannot be accepted. Perusal of the impugned order passed by the Sessions Court reveals that the Applicant had not taken this stand at any time during the trial. Though statutory notice was served, no reply was given by him. Even in the statement under section 313 of Cr.P.C. also this fact was not mentioned by him. Thereafter, though he wanted to lead evidence, he took time on number of occasions and, therefore, non-bailable warrant was issued against him. An application was filed by the accused under section 311 of Cr.P.C., thereafter witness summons was issued. The bank’s witness produced the documents on record, again the accused remained absent and, thereafter, the matter was finally decided by the Sessions Court. Though the accused had ample 4 (Revn 501 of 2010) opportunities to produce the letter on record in the Trial Court, he has not taken any steps to produce the letter in the Trial Court. The Sessions Court, therefore, has rightly rejected the application filed by him for leading additional evidence. 6. Hence, no case is made out by the Applicant for interfering with the impugned order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge. The Revision Application is, therefore, dismissed. Hearing of the appeal is expedited. (V.M. KANADE J.)