Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 154 (UTT)

K. P. Shrivastav v. State of Uttarakhand

2016-04-06

SUDHANSHU DHULIA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. 1. The applicant was convicted by the trial court under Section 2/3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act vide order dated 16.10.2012. Against the conviction, an appeal has been filed by the applicant which is pending before the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal. 2. During the pendency of this appeal, an application under Section 391 CrPC was filed by the applicant before the appellate court for adducing additional evidence stating that he is not a Director of the Company but he is only an Honorary Director which was rejected by the appellate court. Aggrieved, he has filed the present application under Section 482 CrPC invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. 3. In view of this Court, this has rightly been done by the court below as it was never the case of the applicant before the court below that he was not a Director of the Company or that he had nothing to do with the Company. In fact even earlier, when cognizance was taken in the matter by the Magistrate, against the said order applicant filed a revision before the revisional court which was dismissed by the revisional court on grounds that no evidence was filed by the applicant before the court below on the aspect that he was not responsible for the day to day activities of the Company, or that he is not a Director of the Company. 4. On these facts and at such a belated stage, it would not be proper to accept an evidence on the same aspect, with only slight modification when the applicant has now taken a stand that he is a non-executive Director of the Company who is not responsible for the day to day work of the Company and for that he wants to present additional evidence. This application has been rightly rejected by the appellate court as the applicant in his statement under Section 313 CrPC has admitted that he is one of the Directors of the Company. The application to submit additional evidence before the appellate court under Section 391 CrPC at a belated stage, without proper explanation as to why this evidence could not be produced before the trial court, has been rightly rejected. The application to submit additional evidence before the appellate court under Section 391 CrPC at a belated stage, without proper explanation as to why this evidence could not be produced before the trial court, has been rightly rejected. This is hence not a case where inherent powers of this Court be invoked, as there appears to be no abuse of the process of Court. 5. The application under Section 482 CrPC stands dismissed. Interim order dated 28.08.2014 passed by this Court stands vacated.