SRI. MAHESH CHAND J. B. vs SRI. C. N. MANJUNATHA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60944
CRL.P No. 11373 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010516222025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ND
DATED THIS THE 2 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 11373 OF 2025
(482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)-)
BETWEEN:
SRI. MAHESH CHAND J. B.
S/O BYRAPPA N
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 193, JAKKUR VILLAGE,
BEHIND GOVERNMENT LIBRARY,
JAKKUR, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560064
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRAKASHA M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI. C. N. MANJUNATHA
S/O M NANJUNDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
R/AT BYRAVESHWARA NILAYA,
NEAR CITIZEN SCHOOL ROAD,
TH
4 CROSS, SWAMY VIVEKANDANAGAR
HOSAKOTE TOWN - 562114
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
…RESPONDENT
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S
528 BNSS) PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND QUASH THE
ORDER PASSED BY THE LXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, AT BENGALURU IN CRL.A.NO.2356/2019 DTD 19.04.2025
CONNECTED WITH C.C.NO.3671/2015 OF THE JUDGE, COURT OF
TH
SMALL CAUSES 26 A.C.M.M AT BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE
P/U/S 138 OF N.I ACT.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
05/11/2026, 13:38, Bengaluru
Verified
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60944
CRL.P No. 11373 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010516222025
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
ORAL ORDER
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the
following reliefs;
1. Call for records and quash the order passed by
the LXII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, at
Bengaluru in Crl.A.No.2356/2019 dtd 19.04.2025
connected with C.C.No.3671/2015 of the Judge,
th
Court Of Small Causes 26 A.C.M.M at bengaluru
for the offence p/u/s 138 of N.I Act..
2. Permit the petitioner lead further evidence in
Crl.A.no.2356/2019 pending before LXII Addl.
City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru.
2. Respondent No.2 had instituted a private complaint
under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973, alleging commission of an offence punishable
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881, in PCR No.18681/2013, which subsequently
came to be registered as C.C. No.3671/2015. The
allegation was that the petitioner had issued a
cheque for a sum of ₹60,00,000/- drawn on
Standard Chartered Bank and that the same, upon
presentation, was dishonoured on account of
insufficiency of funds.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
05/11/2026, 13:38, Bengaluru
Verified
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60944
CRL.P No. 11373 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010516222025
3. Evidence having been adduced by the complainant
and the petitioner having cross-examined the
witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant,
the learned Magistrate, by order dated 14.10.2019,
allowed the complaint and convicted the petitioner
for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, sentencing him to pay a
fine of ₹65,00,000/- and, in default of payment
thereof, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period
of one year.
4. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction, the
petitioner preferred Crl.A. No.2356/2019 before the
LXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru. During the pendency of the appeal, the
petitioner filed an application under Section 391 read
with Section 91 of the Cr.P.C., seeking permission to
produce additional documentary evidence.
5. The document which the petitioner sought to produce
was an endorsement issued by the Sub-Registrar,
Kengeri, concerning the payment of stamp duty in
respect of Ex.P7. According to the petitioner, the
endorsement would establish that the requisite
stamp duty in respect of Ex.P7 had not been paid
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
05/11/2026, 13:38, Bengaluru
Verified
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60944
CRL.P No. 11373 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010516222025
before the Sub-Registrar, Kengeri, and that the said
document was, therefore, fabricated.
6. It was contended that the production of the
endorsement was necessary to demonstrate the
alleged fabrication of Ex.P7 and that the same ought
to be received as additional evidence in the criminal
appeal.
7. The First Appellate Court, by order dated
19.04.2025, rejected the said application. The First
Appellate Court noticed that the complainant had
already produced and marked Exs.P1 to P15,
including Ex.P7, during the course of trial. The
petitioner had cross-examined the complainant's
witnesses and had also entered the witness box and
adduced evidence in support of his defence.
8. It was further noticed that, at no stage during the
trial, had the petitioner disputed the genuineness or
admissibility of Ex.P7 or sought to produce the
proposed endorsement issued by the Sub-Registrar.
It is challenging the said order that the petitioner is
before this Court.
9. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
05/11/2026, 13:38, Bengaluru
Verified
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60944
CRL.P No. 11373 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010516222025
respondent No.2, as also the learned HCGP
appearing for respondent No.1. Perused the papers.
10. The primary question which arises for consideration
is whether the petitioner has made out a case for
permitting him to produce additional evidence at the
appellate stage under Section 391 of the Cr.P.C.
11. At the outset, it is necessary to notice that the
original criminal appeal was instituted in the year
2019 and was pending prior to the commencement
of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, on
01.07.2024. In view of Section 531(2)(a) of the
BNSS, the said pending appeal is required to be
continued and disposed of in accordance with the
provisions of the Cr.P.C. The application seeking
production of additional evidence is, therefore,
required to be considered with reference to Section
391 of the Cr.P.C.
12. Section 391 of the Cr.P.C. empowers the Appellate
Court, if it considers additional evidence necessary
for the proper disposal of the appeal, to either take
such evidence itself or direct it to be taken by the
competent Court or Magistrate. The provision is
intended to ensure that the appellate Court is not
prevented from arriving at a just decision merely
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
05/11/2026, 13:38, Bengaluru
Verified
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60944
CRL.P No. 11373 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010516222025
because relevant evidence was not brought on record
during the trial.
13. However, the power under Section 391 is not
intended to provide an unrestricted opportunity to an
appellant to introduce additional material merely
because the original proceedings have resulted in an
order adverse to him. The necessity for receiving
additional evidence must be demonstrated, and the
application must satisfy the requirements of the
provision.
14. The power under Section 391 of the Cr.P.C. is
intended to subserve the ends of justice and is not
meant to provide an opportunity to a party to fill up
lacunae in the evidence. The power is required to be
exercised with caution so that the receipt of
additional evidence does not cause prejudice to the
opposite party or result in a disguised retrial.
15. The power to record additional evidence under
Section 391 of the Cr.P.C. ought to be exercised
where the party seeking to produce the evidence was
prevented from doing so during trial despite
exercising due diligence, or where the facts giving
rise to the request came to light at a later stage
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
05/11/2026, 13:38, Bengaluru
Verified
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60944
CRL.P No. 11373 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010516222025
during the pendency of the appeal and non-recording
of such evidence may result in failure of justice.
16. Where the accused had adequate opportunity to
bring the relevant material on record during trial but
had failed to do so, the Appellate Court or this court
is not required to come to the aid and assistance of
the accused for collecting evidence on his behalf.
17. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the
present case, it is necessary to examine the nature
and relevance of the document which the petitioner
seeks to introduce.
18. The petitioner seeks to produce an endorsement
issued by the Sub-Registrar, Kengeri, to contend that
the stamp duty in respect of Ex.P7 had not been paid
and, consequently, the said document was
fabricated.
19. However, Ex.P7 is an agreement of sale executed by
Sri. A. Prasad, as vendor, in favour of
Sri.C.N.Manjunath, as purchaser. Sri.C.N.Manjunath
is the complainant in the proceedings under Section
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The
petitioner, Sri.Mahesh Chand.J.B., is neither the
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
05/11/2026, 13:38, Bengaluru
Verified
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60944
CRL.P No. 11373 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010516222025
vendor nor the purchaser under the said agreement
of sale.
20. Further, the agreement was subsequently cancelled
between the vendor and the purchaser, and there is
no dispute between the said parties insofar as the
cancellation of the agreement is concerned.
21. In the above circumstances, the petitioner has not
demonstrated as to how the endorsement proposed
to be produced would have a bearing on the liability
arising out of the cheque issued by him in favour of
the complainant.
22. The proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act concern the issuance of the cheque
by the petitioner, its presentation and dishonour, and
whether the cheque was issued towards discharge, in
whole or in part, of a legally enforceable debt or
other liability.
23. The existence or otherwise of an agreement of sale
between the complainant and a third party,
particularly when the petitioner himself is not a party
to the said agreement, cannot, without establishing
the necessary nexus, be treated as material capable
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
05/11/2026, 13:38, Bengaluru
Verified
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60944
CRL.P No. 11373 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010516222025
of determining the liability arising under the cheque
in question.
24. This Court is also unable to appreciate how the mere
production of an endorsement indicating non-
payment of stamp duty in respect of Ex.P7 would, by
itself, establish that the document was fabricated.
The question as to whether the agreement was
genuinely executed, whether it was subsequently
cancelled and what legal consequences arise
therefrom are matters concerning the parties to that
agreement.
25. The petitioner cannot, merely by seeking to introduce
an endorsement regarding stamp duty, seek to
reopen a transaction between two other persons,
particularly when he has not demonstrated how the
alleged defect in the said document has any bearing
on the transaction forming the subject matter of the
cheque dishonour proceedings.
26. It is also relevant to notice that Ex.P7 had been
marked in evidence during the trial. The petitioner
had the opportunity to cross-examine the
complainant's witnesses in relation to the said
document. He had also entered the witness box and
adduced evidence in support of his defence.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
05/11/2026, 13:38, Bengaluru
Verified
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60944
CRL.P No. 11373 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010516222025
27. There is no material placed before this Court to
indicate that the petitioner was prevented, despite
exercising due diligence, from obtaining the
endorsement from the Sub-Registrar, Kengeri, during
the pendency of the trial. Nor has the petitioner
demonstrated that the fact sought to be established
through the proposed document came to his
knowledge only after the judgment of conviction or
during the pendency of the appeal.
28. Thus, the essential requirements for invoking the
power under Section 391 of the Cr.P.C., are not
satisfied.
29. The contention that the petitioner should be
permitted to produce the endorsement merely to
demonstrate that Ex.P7 is fabricated would also not
be sufficient. The exercise of power under Section
391 is not intended to enable an accused to embark
upon an independent inquiry into every document
marked during trial, irrespective of its relevance to
the offence for which he has been convicted.
30. The petitioner is required to demonstrate that the
proposed additional evidence is necessary for
arriving at a just decision in the appeal and that its
non-production would result in failure of justice. In
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
05/11/2026, 13:38, Bengaluru
Verified
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60944
CRL.P No. 11373 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010516222025
the present case, neither of these requirements has
been established.
31. It is made clear that this Court is not expressing any
opinion on the genuineness, admissibility or
evidentiary value of Ex.P7, nor is it making any
observation regarding the issuance of the cheque or
its dishonour. The consideration in the present
proceedings is confined to the question as to whether
the endorsement issued by the Sub-Registrar,
Kengeri, is required to be received as additional
evidence in the criminal appeal.
32. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the petitioner has not made
out any ground for interference with the order dated
19.04.2025 passed by the First Appellate Court. The
proposed document has not been shown to be
necessary for the just disposal of the appeal and the
petitioner has also failed to establish that he was
prevented from producing the same during the
course of trial despite exercising due diligence.
33. Accordingly, no grounds are made out for allowing
the petition.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
05/11/2026, 13:38, Bengaluru
Verified
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60944
CRL.P No. 11373 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010516222025
ORDER
dismissed
i. The petition is .
ii. The order dated 19.04.2025 passed by the LXII
Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru, in Crl.A. No.2356/2019, rejecting
the application filed by the petitioner under
Section 391 read with Section 91 of the Cr.P.C.,
is upheld.
iii. The petitioner is at liberty to advance all
permissible contentions on the basis of the
evidence already available on record during the
hearing of the criminal appeal.
iv. The observations made hereinabove are
confined to the consideration of the present
petition and shall not influence the First
Appellate Court while deciding the appeal on its
merits.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
05/11/2026, 13:38, Bengaluru
Verified
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
JUDGE
SR
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19