S.S. Saron, J.@mdashThis revision petition has been filed against the order dated 8.5.2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
(Fast Track Court), Bhiwani, whereby the application of the Petitioner for leading additional evidence has been declined.
2. The Petitioner was working as a Conductor with the Haryana Roadways, Bhiwani. On 29.8.1991 he was on duty in the bus and carrying
passengers from Bhiwani to Dadri/Alwar. On the way the bus was checked at village Haluwas by the Inspectors of the Roadways Department.
The Petitioner, it was found, had given a ticket bearing No. 54601 of Rs. 1.50 to a passenger. The face value of which was changed from Rs.
1.50 to Rs. 4.50. From the possession of the Petitioner two bundles of tickets numbering from 54601 to 54700 and 54701 to 54800 were
recovered. On account of the change of the face value of the ticket the Petitioner was tried and convicted by the learned trial Court vide order
dated 30.1.2002. Against the said order, the Petitioner has filed an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, which is pending before the
learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Bhiwani. Along with the appeal an application u/s 391 Code of Criminal Procedure was
filed for grant of permission to lead additional evidence i.e. way bill, photocopy of which has been attached as Annexure P-1, dated 29.8.1991 to
the present petition. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court) Bhiwani, vide his impugned order dated 8.5.2006 has declined the
application which is assailed by the Petitioner.
3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner had obtained photocopy of the way bill dated 29.8.1991 in which there is no
noting regarding cheating or converting the tickets from Rs. 1.50 to Rs. 4.50. However, the Petitioner has been convicted on the basis of the
documents Ex. PW-2A which is attached as Annexure P-2. It is submitted that the document Ex. PW-2A (Annexure P-2) mentions the entry of
forgery and cheating of the change of value of tickets from serial Nos. 54601 to 54700 and 54701 to 54800 whereas nothing was mentioned in
the original way bill (Annexure P-1). It is submitted that the original way bill (Annexure P-1) was not produced on record by the prosecution and
therefore, the same is liable to be allowed to be produced.
4. In response learned Counsel for the State has submitted that the petition has been filed only to delay the matter. The case is of the year 1992
and in case the Petitioner wanted to produce the way bill that he now wants to produce he could have done so before the trial Court in his
defence. In any case, it is submitted that the way bill (Annexure P-2) was taken in possession from the Petitioner and in lieu of that the way bill
(Annexure P-1) was given to him. In the way bill (Annexure P-1), it has been mentioned by the checker that the tickets 54601 to 54700 and
54701 to 54800 were with them. It is submitted that the Petitioner was having in his possession both the way bills (Annexure P-1 and Annexure P-
2). However, the way bill Annexure P-2 was taken in possession and the receipt of taking the tickets was recorded on the said way bill (Annexure
P-1). Thereafter, on the bill (Annexure P-2) that was taken in possession, an endorsement was made that the Petitioner had committed forgery.
Therefore, it is submitted that the Petitioner cannot derive any advantage of the way bill (Annexure P-1) which was left with him and after the
journey was deposited by him with the Roadways Authorities.
5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the matter. The fact as to what benefit the Petitioner may get of the way bill (Annexure P-1), the
production of which is sought, by way of additional evidence, is to be considered and gone into during the trial of the case after the same has been
produced on record. Prima facie it appears that the way bill (Annexure P-1) would advance the cause of justice as regards the matter in issue
between the parties. The production of way bill (Annexure P-1) appears to be essential for the just decision of the case. The Petitioner is facing
prosecution of selling bus passenger tickets of the face value of Rs. 1.50 by changing them to that of Rs. 4.50. The figure `1'' was changed to `4''
with a black pen. Therefore, whatever advantage that can be got by the Petitioner with the production of the way bill (Annexure P-1) which is an
official document of the Haryana Roadways, the same is liable to be allowed. This is more so for the reason that no prejudice would be caused to
the State in case the way bill (Annexure P-1) is allowed to be produced and tendered in evidence by way of additional evidence.
Consequently, the criminal revision petition is allowed. The Petitioner is allowed to produce on record by way of evidence the way bill (Annexure
P-1). However, nothing stated hereinabove shall be construed as an expression on the merits of the case that is pending between the parties.
.jpg)
