Based on the provided legal document, the key legal principles and findings are as follows:

1. The power to record additional evidence under Section 391 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) must be exercised with caution and circumspection. The court emphasized that this power should only be used when the party seeking to adduce additional evidence demonstrates due diligence and shows that the evidence was not available earlier or that the relevant facts came to light at a later stage during the appeal (!) (!) .

2. The court clarified that the conditions for granting permission to lead additional evidence include the requirement that the evidence was not within the party’s knowledge at the appropriate time, despite due diligence, or that it resulted from a subsequent event. Merely omitting to produce evidence earlier does not justify its admission at the appellate stage unless the party can establish that they were prevented from presenting the evidence earlier (!) (!) (!) .

3. The court stressed that the power to record additional evidence is an exception to the general rule that appeals are decided based on the evidence before the trial court. It must be exercised carefully to avoid unnecessary prolongation of proceedings or injustice (!) (!) .

4. In the case at hand, the applicant failed to demonstrate due diligence or that the facts giving rise to the request for additional evidence emerged only at a later stage. The evidence sought to be introduced was within the applicant’s knowledge during the trial, but he did not produce it then, nor did he offer a sufficient explanation for the delay (!) (!) (!) .

5. The court found that the applicant's plea that the evidence was unavailable earlier was unsubstantiated, and the attempt to introduce such evidence at the appellate stage appeared to be an effort to prolong the proceedings rather than serve the ends of justice (!) .

6. Consequently, the court upheld the rejection of the application for additional evidence, affirmed the order passed by the appellate court, and dismissed the revision petition, reinforcing the principle that the exercise of authority under Section 391 CrPC must be judicious and based on established criteria (!) (!) .

In summary, the judgment underscores that the discretion to admit additional evidence under Section 391 CrPC is limited and must be exercised only when the applicant demonstrates that they could not have produced the evidence earlier despite due diligence, and that the facts justifying the evidence arose later during the appeal.