Summary: In a case from Ahmednagar, the Bombay High Court's Aurangabad Bench allowed more evidence to be used in an appeal about a bounced cheque. The decision, made by Judge Mehroz K. Pathan, shows how complicated legal procedures can be and stresses the importance of fair trials.
The case involves Ramdas Madhavrao Korde, a 76-year-old farmer from Pravara Sangam, and Shrikant Sudhakar Dahale, a 60-year-old businessman from Newasa. The dispute is about a cheque that bounced, which was supposedly given as a promise for a loan.
On December 20, 2023, and March 19, 2024, the Additional Sessions Judge in Ahmednagar allowed Dahale to bring in more documents for his appeal. Korde disagreed with this, arguing that these documents shouldn't be considered as new evidence.
"Shrikant Sudhakar Dahale was already found guilty by the trial court for the bounced cheque," Ramdas Madhavrao Korde’s lawyer argued.
The main legal debate was about using Section 391 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which lets higher courts accept more evidence if they think it’s necessary.
Judge Mehroz K. Pathan agreed with the earlier decisions, saying the documents were important for a fair decision. The court stressed that these powers are there to make sure justice is served.
Korde's lawyers argued that Dahale had plenty of chances to show these documents during the trial and that bringing them in now was unfair. They mentioned several past cases to support their argument.
Dahale's lawyer argued that the documents were important to show that the cheque was given as a promise for a loan and not as a debt that had to be paid.
Judge Mehroz K. Pathan found nothing wrong with the decision to allow the documents as more evidence. The court said that the documents were official copies and that their importance would be looked at during the appeal's final decision.
"The powers under Section 391 are there to ensure justice," the court noted.
The request by Ramdas Madhavrao Korde to cancel the orders allowing more evidence was denied. The court asked the Sessions Judge to speed up the appeal process, aiming to finish it within a year.
This case shows how the legal system can be flexible to make sure all important evidence is looked at, even at the appeal stage, to ensure fairness.
