THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5205 OF 2010 ORDER: 1 The unofficial respondent herein filed C.C.No.196 of 2009 on the file of the court of the XV Additional Judge cum XIX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad against the petitioner herein alleging an offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned Magistrate, having taken the case into cognisance, considering the evidence that was let in, came to the conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of the said offence and accordingly sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- As against the said judgment dated 27.10.2009 the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No.377 of 2009 and the same is pending on the file of the court of the II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Nampally, Hyderabad. 2 During the pendency of the said appeal the petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.45 of 2010 stating that a letter addressed by the IDBI Bank Limited to the petitioner which is a reply to the letter addressed by the petitioner on 08.02.2010 may be marked as an Exhibit. He further submitted that as the said fact was not brought to the notice of the trial court, he requested the appellate court to receive the said document as additional evidence. However the appellate court dismissed the same stating that it is unnecessary. As against the said order, as stated supra, this petition has been filed. 3 Heard. 4 It is a fact that the said document i.e. letter addressed by the IDBI Bank Limited to the petitioner was not marked by the trial court for the reason that the same was not produced by the petitioner during the course of trial. However, the explanation offered by the petitioner in this petition is that the said document was not available during the course of trial before the trial court. 5 Additional evidence can be produced at any stage of the proceedings i.e. even at the stage of appeal. The reasons assigned by the appellate court is that the said document does not improve the case in any manner. In my considered view, the said stand appears to be incorrect. When once the provision say that additional evidence can be produced at an stage of proceedings, and when the petitioner came forward with a plea that the said document is not available at the time of trial, the appellate court ought to have accepted the said contention and dispose of the said appeal after recording the said additional evidence. 6 Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the order dated 11.05.2010 passed by the learned II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge in Crl.M.P.No.45 of 2010 in Criminal Appeal No.377 of 2009 is hereby set aside. 7 The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter is ripe for arguments. In that view of the matter, the appellate court is hereby directed to accept the said document as additional evidence and complete the entire proceedings within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. -------------- 23.06.2010 C.C. in two days B/0 Kvsn