1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Revision Application No. 151 of 2008 1. SEWAKRAMJI RAMJI SAHU . KHAPARDE PLOT, PARATWADA, TQ. ACHALPUR, AMRAVATI .. Petitioner/s VERSUS 1. NARENDRAKUMAR GOWARDHANDAS AGRAWAL KHAPARDE PLOT, PARATWADA, AMRAVATI .. Respondent/s -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Vinay Dahat, Advocate for applicant. CORAM:- R. Y. GANOO, J. DATED:- 5 th AUGUST, 2009. 1. Heard Mr. Dahat, Advocate for the applicant. None for the non applicant. 2. The applicant faced trial in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Amravati in summary case No. 2887/2003 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class convicted the applicant by judgment and order dated 12.03.2007 against which the applicant has filed an appeal being Criminal Appeal 2 No. 14/2007. The said appeal is pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Achalpur. In the said appeal, the applicant filed an application at Exh.-19 praying for production of certain documents and for taking additional evidence. That application has been rejected by learned Additional Session Judge vide order dated 12.06.2008. Against that order this application has been filed. 3. I have heard learned Advocates appearing for both the sides. 4. It has been the stand of applicant that one person by name N. B. Patil, an employee of Bank, has indulged in certain overt act to the prejudice of the applicant and that is how the applicant has suffered at the hands of the said N. B. Patil and the applicant wanted to bring on record the relevant correspondence including a letter sent by the Advocate on behalf of the said Patil, which letter, in terms accepts the allegations levelled by the applicant against the said N. B. Patil. I have gone through the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge. It is to be noted that the applicant has faced full dressed trial. Certainly, if the applicant wanted to frame his defence by levelling allegations against the said N. B. Patil, he could/should have done it at the time of 3 trial. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has, by giving reasons, rejected the application on the ground that a totally new story is sought to be created and brought on record by the applicant. A different view from the one taken by learned Additional Sessions Judge cannot be taken for the simple reason that the applicant, during the pendency of the trial did not resort to any manner by which he could bring the role of said N. B. Patil. It is not the case of the applicant that he was not permitted before the Court to put up his case properly. If this is to be so the stand taken by the applicant is completely after thought and cannot be accepted. The provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure as regards production of the documents and regarding by additional evidence at the appellate Court cannot be used in a case like this. The learned Additional Sessions Judge rightly rejected the application. No interference is required in the impugned order at the admission stage. Hence, the order. The revision application is dismissed. JUDGE kahale