Point of Law :
it is settled principle of law that this Court being appellate Court is having power to receive the additional evidence under Section 391 of Cr.P.C. and the said power has to be exercised sparingly with diligence depending upon the fact situation of each and every case having due regard to the concept of fair play and justice and well being of the society. Only in exceptional cases where the prosecution or the accused for compelling reasons could not produce the evidence before the trial Court, then only the additional evidence is permissible to be filed and the appellate Court can permit the parties to receive the additional evidence

JUDGMENT :

1. Petitioner/appellant filed this application to receive additional evidence i.e. letter No.HMWSSB/Revenue-Wing/PIO/RTI/2017-18/2216, dated 12.03.2018 issued by the General Manager (Rev) & Public Information Officer, Revenue Circle, pending Criminal Appeal No.1106 of 2006. The appellant filed the above said appeal assailing judgment dated 28.08.2006 in CC No.15 of 1999 passed by Additional Special Judge fort SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein and whereby the accused was convicted for the offences under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner herein filed the present I.A.

2. It is the contention of the petitioner that soon after the trap proceedings by ACB Officials, he was kept under suspension, he could not attend the duties and he has no access to the files pertaining to the transaction showing favour to PW.1 before and at the time of trap. It is his further contention that subsequently, even during the time of trial, he had no access to the relevant proceedings as the entire file was in the custody of ACB officials and due to the said reasons and circumstances, he could not take effective defence to prove that there was no occasion either to demand and accept the bribe as alleged from PW.1. It is his further contention that even during the trial also he was unable to locate the corresponding communication which could have helped him to take his defence. Due to the said reason and non-availability of the said proceedings, he could not take proper and effective defence except putting a suggestion to the Investigating Officer. According to him he has obtained letter dated 12.03.2018 issued by the General Manager (Rev) & Public Information Officer, Revenue Wing, under Right to Information Act (for short ‘RTI Act’). According to him, non-filing of the said document during the trial before the trial Court is neither wilful nor wanton, but due to the reasons stated above. With the said contentions, he prayed to receive the said letter dated 12.03.2018 as additional evidence in the present appeal.

3. The respondent filed a counter opposing the said petition. It is the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner/appellant did not show any sufficient reason for non-filing of the said document during the trial. He was having knowledge and despite giving opportunity, he did not file the said letter before the trial Court. It is the further contention of the learned Public Prosecutor that the letter dated 12.03.2018 is the information furnished to the petitioner under RTI Act and it cannot be taken as additional evidence. It is also his further contention that the information furnished under the RTI Act is based on the database of the Officer concerned and it is not admissible as per Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. With the said contentions, learned Public Prosecutor prayed for dismissal of the IA.

4. As stated above, the petitioner/appellant filed the above said I.A. to receive letter dated 12.03.2018 as additional evidence in the present appeal. According to the petitioner, he has obtained the said letter under RTI Act as per which the water supply connection was initially sanctioned in the name of Smt. D. Prameela and later changed to L. Venkat Reddy. It is the contention of the petitioner that after the trap, he was kept under suspension, he had no access to the files pertaining to the transaction and therefore, he could not get the said document/information during the pendency of the trial. Non-filing of the said document is neither wilful nor wanton and according to him it is an important and vital piece of evidence and therefore he sought to receive the said letter dated 12.03.2018 as additional evidence.

5. In support of his case, the petitioner/appellant relied upon a judgment of this Court in N. Somi Reddy v. State of A.P (2005 (2) ALD (Crl.) 406 A.P.), wherein it w