[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVN.APPLN.NO.543 OF 2008 Mandepanda Pooviah Cariappa ..Applicant Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents ... Mr.J.A.Udaipuri advocate i/b M/s.Udaipuri and Co.for applicant Ms.R.V.Pradhan Adv. along with Mr.Raja Thakore Advocate for Respondent no.2 Mr.Y.M.Nakhwa A.P.P. for the State ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : NOVEMBER 20, 2008 DATE : NOVEMBER 20, 2008 DATE : NOVEMBER 20, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned advocate for the applicant-original accused and the learned advocate for the respondent-original complainant. 2. The applicant has been convicted under Section 630 of the Companies Act on a complaint by Guestline Hospitality Management & Development Services Ltd. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order of conviction, the applicant preferred Appeal No.368 of 2007 before the Sessions Court. During the hearing of the said Criminal Appeal, applicant preferred Criminal Misc. Application under section 391 of Cr.P.C. to allow him to [-2-] adduce additional evidence in this matter. The said application came to be rejected by the learned Sessions Judge by order dated 10.9.2008, hence, this revision. 3. The contention of the applicant is that the complainant has stated that the applicant was in their employment and he was terminated from service. However, according to the applicant, he was not an employee of the complainant but he was an employee of M/s. Mahendra Eugine Steel Co. Ltd. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on letter by Mahendra Eugine Steel Co.Ltd. addressed to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner which deals with pension of the applicant. The specific contention of the applicant-accused is that if he is an employee of Mahendra Eugine Steel Co.Ltd. a complaint could not have been filed by the complainant Guestline Hotel Management and Development Services Ltd. which is an entirely different concern from Guestline. Hence, the applicant preferred application to adduce additional evidence to show that he was an employee of Mahendra Eugine Steel Co.Ltd. and not an employee of the complainant. [-3-] 4. If according to the applicant, he was an employee of Mahendra Eugine Steel Co.Ltd. the said fact was known to him, hence evidence relating to the same could have been led during the trial. However, during the trial, despite sufficient opportunity being given to the applicant, the applicant did not take necessary steps to bring on record the fact that in fact, he was an employee of M/s.Mahendra Eugine Steel Co.Ltd. 5. It is seen that though sufficient opportunity had been granted to him by the trial Court during the trial, yet no steps were taken by the applicant. Thereafter, only during the course of hearing of the appeal, the applicant preferred this application under Section 391 of Cr.P.C. During the trial after the complainant was examined, an application was made by the applicant for recalling of the complainant. The said application came to be decided on 2.5.2006. Thereafter, the statement of the applicant came to be recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. However, in the said statement also, the applicant has not stated that he was not an employee of the complainant but infact, he was [-4-] an employee of M/s.Mahendra Eugine Steel Co.Ltd. As stated earlier, it is seen that during the trial ample opportunity was given to the applicant, however, no steps were taken by the applicant to produce the documents or examine any witnesses during the trial and it is only at a belated stage during the appeal, that this application came to be preferred. 6. The Supreme Court in State of U.P. Vs. Manbodhan Lal Srivastav, reported in AIR 1957 S.C. 912, has observed that: . "Without looking into the additional evidence proposed to be placed before us, we indicated that we would not permit additional evidence to be placed at this stage when there was sufficient opportunity for the State Government to place all the relevant matters before the High Court itself. We could not see any special reasons why additional evidence should be allowed to be adduced in this Court. It was not suggested that all that [-5-] matter which was proposed to be placed before this Court was not available to the State Government during the time that the High Court considered the writ petitions on two occasions." It was further held by Their Lordships that: "It is well settled that additional evidence should not be permitted at the appellate stage in order to enable one of the parties to remove certain lacunae in presenting its case at the proper stage, and to fill in gaps. Of course, the position is different where the appellate court itself requires certain evidence to be adduced in order to do justice between the parties". 7. In view of the above decision and the facts of this case, no case is made out for interference, hence, application is rejected. [-6-] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]