1 crwp1437 ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1437 OF 2010 M/s.Hydrochem Flexible ...Petitioner vs. Tajdin Mohammad Makhija & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.C.T.Chandratare for the Petitioner Mr.A.R.Patil, A.P.P for the respondent-State Mr.S.M.Gorwadkar for respondent no.1 CORAM : A.S.OKA,J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 23, 2011 P.C.: 1 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner has been arraigned as an accused in a complaint under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act,1881. On 20th December 2008, the petitioner filed pursis recording that he does not desire to lead evidence. On 19th January 2009, the petitioner was convicted. In the appeal preferred by the petitioner,in June 2009, the petitioner made an application under section 391 of Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 seeking permission to produce evidence in the form of certain documents. By the impugned order, the said application has been rejected. 2 The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the pursis filed on 20th December 2008 is peculiarly worded which shows that the pursis was filed as per the advice of the Advocate for the 2 crwp1437 petitioner who was under an impression that there was sufficient material to falsify the case of the respondent no.1. He submitted that the documents sought to be produced are very relevant. He submitted that only on the basis of certain statements made in paragraph 5 of the application, the Sessions Court could not have rejected his application. He submitted that in the petition he has explained the meaning of averments made in paragraph 5. He, therefore, submitted that an opportunity cannot be denied to the petitioner to produce the documents on record of the Appeal. 3 I have carefully considered the submissions. The evidence close pursis filed by the petitioner before the Trial Court is admittedly signed by the petitioner as well the Advocate for the petitioner. On 19th December 2008, in the statement made under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973, the partner of the petitioner stated that he was desirous of examining witnesses. On the next date, the aforesaid pursis was filed signed by the petitioner as well as its Advocate recording that the defence evidence of the petitioner was closed. The paragraph 5 of the application under section 391 reads thus : 5 Applicant further states that his statement under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 was recorded on 19.12.2008 and the pursis was given on 20.12.2008. In the statement the Applicant has clearly stated that he want to examine 3 crwp1437 himself on oath and defence witness. Applicant therefore submits that the pursis was given under certain compelling circumstances of which the Applicant has no knowledge. (underline supplied) 4 Now a case is sought to be made that the pursis was given as per the legal advice. On the basis of the averments made in paragraph 5 of the Application, the Sessions Court could not have permitted the petitioner to adduce additional evidence. The petitioner has not at all set out compelling circumstances under which he signed the pursis. On the contrary, there is an averment made that there were compelling circumstance of which the petitioner has no knowledge. 5 This is not a case where interference can be made in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Petition is rejected. JUDGE