1 cr-wp-854-11 jdk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI. WRIT PETITION NO. 854 OF 2011 Mr. Bharat Sekhsaria ..Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. ..Respondents .... Mr. Rajendra Sorankar Advocate for petitioner Mr. A.S.Gadkari A.P.P. for Respondent-State .... CORAM : P.V.HARDAS AND M.N.GILANI, JJ. DATED : MARCH 29, 2011 PER COURT: 1 This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by which the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus calling for the record and proceedings of appeal pending before the Sessions Court Bombay in Criminal Appeal No. 751 of 2005 and to direct the Sessions Court to decide the application filed by the petitioner under Section 391 of Code of Criminal Procedure before deciding the appeal. 2 cr-wp-854-11 2 It appears that the petitioner, who was an accused in a trial under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act came to be convicted by the learned Magistrate. The petitioner being aggrieved by his conviction and sentence preferred appeal before the appellate Court. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner has filed an application under Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for additional evidence. It appears that the petitioner has also filed application urging the appellate Court to decide the application under Section 391 of Cr.P.C. prior to deciding the appeal. The aforesaid application of the petitioner, the application under Section 391 of Cr.P.C. and the appeal have been kept for judgment/orders tomorrow i.e. on 30.3.2011. Undisputedly the petitioner was heard both on his application under Section 391 of Cr.P.C. as well as in respect of the appeal filed by the petitioner. 3 The learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged before us that the appellate Court ought to have passed orders on the application under Section 391 of Cr.P.C. prior to deciding the appeal of the petitioner. In the present case the appellate Court has fixed the application under Section 391 of Cr.P.C. as well as the appeal for judgment on the same day i.e. on 30.3.2011. There is no requirement of law which mandates that the appellate Court should decide the application for additional evidence i.e. one filed under Section 391 of Cr.P.C. before deciding the appeal on 3 cr-wp-854-11 merits. In that light of the matter, we see no merit in the petition and the same is therefore summarily dismissed with no order as to costs. [ M.N.GILANI, J. ] [ P.V.HARDAS, J. ]