BRIG. SUKHJEET SINGH (RETD.) MVC versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 2 S.C.R. 458 · Decided: 25-01-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHUSHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
458
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 2 S.C.R.
BRIG. SUKHJEET SINGH (RETD.) MVC
 v.
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No.148 of 2019)
JANUARY 25, 2019
[ASHOK BHUSHAN AND K. M. JOSEPH, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.391 – Additional
evidence in Appellate Court – A regimental Welfare Trust owned
various immovable properties including agricultural lands – On
18.10.1989, a deed of declaration of trust was executed by the
office of the trust claiming it to be a new trust without changing the
nature of the trust – On the same date, a resolution no.112 was
passed by the trustees where it authorized the appellant and the
other accused to act in the name of the trust and sell the agricultural
lands – Consequent to which, MOU was entered with the Trust and
respondent no.2 and other purchasers for purchase of land –
Respondent No.2 paid the earnest money – Sale was not executed –
Respondent no.2-complainant filed FIR u/s.420/406 of IPC against
the appellant and the other accused – Trial Court convicted
appellant and the other accused – Criminal Appeal was filed by the
appellant – During the pendency of the appeal, appellant filed
applications u/s.391 of the Cr.P.C. for placing on record the said
trust deed dated 18.10.1989 and resolution no.112, and to summon
witness to prove the same – Applications were rejected by the
Appellate Court – Appellant filed application u/s.482 of Cr.P.C.
against the order of the Appellate Court – High Court rejected the
application u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. and held that applications u/s. 391
Cr.P.C. were filed by the appellant at a belated stage and the same
were filed with some ulterior malafide motive – On appeal, held:
High Court was not right in making observation that filing of
additional evidence was at a belated stage – Appellant was convicted
on 07.10.2013 and appeal was immediately filed on the next date,
i.e. 08.10.2013 – There was nothing on record to indicate that appeal
was being heard and at that stage the application u/s.391 of Cr.P.C.
was filed, thus, to call the application as filed at the belated stage
was unjustified – Furthermore, the application before the High Court
 [2019] 2 S.C.R. 458
  458
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
459
cannot said to be filed with malafide motive of the accused – The
accused, who is convicted, has a right to take all the grounds and
also lead additional evidence, which in accordance with the
Appellant Court is necessary in deciding appeal – Besides that,
one ‘F’ had filed criminal case against the appellant which was
also based on same MOU regarding the sale of agricultural land –
In the said case, the Trust Deed dated 18.10.1989 was filed and
proved, and appellant was acquitted – Thus, High Court committed
error in not exercising jurisdiction u/s.391 of the Cr.P.C.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.391 – Power of the
Appellate Court – Held: There are no fetters on the power u/s. 391
Cr.P.C. of the Appellate Court – All powers are conferred on the
Court to secure ends of justice – The ultimate object of judicial
administration is to secure ends of justice – Court exists for
rendering justice to the people.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The facts indicate that the trust is admittedly the
owner of agricultural land in Village Bichaie.  The complainant
has been in possession of large number of agricultural lands as
thekedar of the trust since 1975, according to his own case, which
he even mentioned in the First Information Report.  The
application under Section 391 Cr.P.C. was made in the Appellate
Court to accept certified copy of the Trust Deed dated 18.10.1989
and the Resolution No. 112 dated 18.10.1989 and permitting the
appellant to prove the said document by leading oral evidence.
The reference of Trust Deed has been made by the trial court in
its judgment dated 07.10.2013.  The trial court in its judgment
had observed “the copy of the Trust Deed dated 18.10.1989 is
available on record being paper No.30Kha/46”.  The trial court
further has observed that “it is pertinent to mention here that
the accused had not proved the Trust Deed dated 18.10.1989 by
way of evidence”. [Para 17] [473-C-E]
2.  What was available on the record was the photocopy of
the Trust Deed.  Due to non-proving of the Trust Deed, the trial
court has not adverted to the Trust Deed and the Resolution,
which were relevant to understand and know the conduct of the
appellant and other trustees for entering in the MOUs for sale of
BRIG. SUKHJEET SINGH (RETD

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.