IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
Mehroz K. Pathan, J.
Ramdas S/o. Madhavrao Korde - Petitioner
Versus
Shrikant S/o. Sudhakar Dahale - Respondent
Criminal Writ Petition No. 1006 of 2024
Decided On : 25-02-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition seeks quashing of appellate orders allowing documents. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioner argues no prayer for additional evidence under section 391 crpc. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. respondent defends documents substantiate cheque security and misuse. (Para 5) |
| 4. appellate court applied mind, found documents necessary for appeal. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 5. section 391 crpc empowers appellate court for additional evidence. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 6. inherent powers under 391 exercisable without specific application prayer. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 7. convicted appellant entitled to necessary additional evidence; no prejudice. (Para 13 , 14) |
| 8. direction to expedite pending appeal adjudication. (Para 15) |
JUDGMENT :
MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J.
1. The petitioner has filed the filed the present petition for quashing and setting aside the orders dated 20.12.2023 and 19.3.2024, passed below Exhibits 38 and 41, respectively, in Criminal Appeal No. 39 of 2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar with a further direction to reject the application below Exhibits 38 and 41.
2. This Court has granted stay to the proceedings vide order dated 24.6.2024 and since then the appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar bearing Criminal Appeal No. 39 of 2018 filed against the conviction of the respondent is pending adjudication.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application filed by the accused below Exh.41 was only filed for the production of documents. Perusal of the application itself would suggest that prayer made by the accused was only to allow him to produce the documents and not to lead any additional evidence. It is further submitted that perusal of Exh.39 would show that the applicant had filed another application for permitting the accused for production of documents on record vide application at Exh. 41 dated 17.2.2024. The petitioner had filed his reply to the said application on 16.3.2024 opposing any such permission to be granted to the accused, on the ground that the accused had enough opportunity to produce the said documents before the trial court and the accused has failed to give any reason as to why the accused has not produced the said documents during the trial and has presented the said documents only at an appellate stage. The petitioner, therefore, prayed for dismissal of said application. However, the learned appellate court vide order dated 20.12.2023 had allowed Exh.38 filed by the accused for production of documents. The learned Sessions Judge has further allowed Exh.41 by order dated 19.3.2024 on the ground that the documents are necessary for deciding the appeal. The learned counsel therefore submits that the observation of the learned Session Judge, in its order dated 19.3.2024 that the documents were permitted to be brought on record shall be considered as an additional evidence for deciding the appeal are uncalled for. The learned counsel for the applicant has serious objection to such observations being made by the learned appellate court there being no such application moved by the prosecution for treating the said documents as additional evidence. All that the applicant prayed for is that, the accused shall be allowed to produce the documents on record, whereas, there was no prayer in the application to treat the documents as additional evidence. Even then, such observations are made by the trial court thereby causing serious prejudice to the complainant by allowing such documents to be read in evidence by the sessions Judge in appeal. Hence, the impugned orders may be quashed and set aside.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that even the application made by the accused would show that they failed to invoke the powers under Section 391 of Cr.P.C. and had not prayed to lead the additional evidence in appeal. Still, the said application is allowed by exercising powers under of Cr.P.C. In absence of any such application made by the accused, the appellate court should no
Appellate courts can invoke inherent powers under Section 391 Cr.P.C. to permit certified documents as additional evidence in appeals, even without specific prayer, if necessary for just decision, pr....
Point of law : Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India confers a Fundamental Right upon an accused, who has been arrested by the police to be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice.
The power to receive additional evidence under Section 391 of the Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases where it is necessary for rendering substantial justice.
Point of Law : Application for taking additional evidence on record at an appellate stage, even if filed during the pendency of the appeal, is to be heard at the time of final hearing of the appeal a....
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the power to record additional evidence under Section 391 CrPC should be exercised with caution and circumspection, and the party seeking t....
The court emphasized that additional evidence under Section 391 of the Cr.P.C. must not prejudice the accused and should only be admitted if necessary to prevent a failure of justice.
The appellate court's discretion under Section 391 Cr.P.C. to admit additional evidence must be exercised cautiously and cannot be used to fill gaps in existing evidence.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.