1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1202 OF 2009 M/s.Amrut Vishnu Nalawade, Through its proprietor Jaywant Arjun Nalawade : Petitioner V/s. State of Maharashtra & Anr. : Respondents ..... WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1203 OF 2009 M/s.Amrut Vishnu Nalawade, Through its proprietor Jaywant Arjun Nalawade : Petitioner V/s. State of Maharahstra & Anr. : Respondents .... Mr.D.V.Sutar for the petitioner. Mr.S.N.Gawade, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. Mrs.Revati Mohite-Dere for respondent no.2. .... CORAM : S.A. BOBDE, J. DATE : OCTOBER 05, 2009. P.C.: 1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 22.4.2009 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kolhapur, rejecting his application for 2 recording additional evidence under section 391 of the Cr.P.C. 2. The petitioner had made the applications in the appeals filed by him against the order convicting him under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. According to the petitioner, there are two reasons that he should have been allowed to lead additional evidence. Firstly, that the respondent-complainant does not have a valid licence for doing the business of selling tea power as a result of which the dishonoured cheque came to be issued. Secondly, according to the petitioner, it is necessary to allow him to enter the witness-box and depose that there was no existing law for the discharge of which the petitioner issued the dishonoured cheques. According to the petitioner, the liability, if any, was that of the partnership firm of which he is a partner whereas the dishonoured cheques were issued by the proprietor firm of which he is the proprietor. Since there was no privity of contract with the proprietary firm, there was no existing law and, in any case, the complaints are bad because all the partners have not been joined as parties. It is difficult to appreciate this contention. There is still no dispute that the cheques were issued by the petitioner in his capacity as the proprietor of the firm. Moreover, throughout the trial, these pleas were not raised and the petitioner did not avail of the opportunity to examine himself as a witness nor was there any cross-examination conducted on the basis of the said pleas. In any case, it 3 was within the discretion of the appellate Court to consider whether additional evidence should be allowed to be led and the discretion has not been exercised arbitrarily. 3. In the result, there is no merit in these petitions which are dismissed. S.A. BOBDE, J.