Back
PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL
Vinod Raghuvanshi – Appellant
Versus
Ajay Arora – Respondent
ORDER
1. The applicant has filed present petition under section 528 of B.N.S.S. against order dated 9.8.2024 passed in CRA. No.489/2023 by XXI Additional Sessions Judge, District Bhopal (M.P.) by which the application preferred by applicant under section 391 of Cr.P.C. for taking additional evidence has been rejected.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant being State Government employee had retired from the post of Deputy Commissioner (Excise). In the year 2003, he was posted as District Excise Officer, Bhopal. The liquor shops situated in Bhopal were put to auction and the same was allotted in favour of Ashoka Traders. The auction proceedings were conducted by a committee headed by then Collector, Bhopal, Shri Anurag Jain, who sent the report to the Excise Commissioner for approval of auction proceedings vide letter dated 11.3.2003 (Annexure A/1). Thereafter, the applicant was transferred from Bhopal on 12.6.2003.
2.1 The respondent/complainant submitted a complaint that partnership deed of Ms. Ashoka Traders was changed by officers and employees of Excise Department. On the basis of said complaint, the state government called a report from the Collector, Bhopal, who se
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....
Production of additional evidence – Powers under Section 391 of Cr.P.C. are to be exercised judiciously and not for mere asking.
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 main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of additional evidence for the just decision of the case and to secure ends of justice under Section 391 Cr.P.C.
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 main legal point established in the judgment is that the power to record additional evidence under Section 391 Cr.P.C. should only be exercised when the party making such request was prevented fr....
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.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
