Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
Saraswathi Rice Industries – Appellant
Versus
K. Bhagyalakshmi – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. filing of petition for additional evidence. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments for necessity of additional evidence. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. counterarguments regarding delay tactics. (Para 5) |
| 4. conditions for introducing additional evidence. (Para 6 , 8) |
| 5. judicial reconsideration of additional evidence. (Para 7 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 6. conclusion allowing additional evidence. (Para 14 , 15) |
ORDER:
TIRUMALA DEVI EADA, J.
This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-appellant-accused seeking to quash the order dated 25.07.2025 passed in Crl.M.P. No.20 of 2023 in Crl.A. No.41 of 2017 by the III Additional District Judge, L.B. Nagar, R.R. District, filed under Section 391 Cr.P.C., wherein the said petition was dismissed.
2. Heard Mr. V. Venkata Subramanyam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A Ravinder Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri Ch. Venkateshwara Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.
3. The case of the petitioners is that the de facto complainant has filed a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short ‘NI Act’) before the trial court against the petitioners herein and the trial court has passed judgment of conviction aga
The court reinforced that under Section 391 Cr.P.C., additional evidence may be admitted to prevent failure of justice, emphasizing the need for fair consideration of crucial documents.
The admission of additional evidence under Section 391 Cr.P.C. is justified only in exceptional circumstances where not doing so may lead to a miscarriage of justice.
Production of additional evidence – Appellate court ought not to have assumed things and drawn adverse inference as against documents that are proposed to be received in evidence.
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.
The court upheld that under Section 391 Cr.P.C., the introduction of additional evidence must be relevant and not merely to fill gaps in an already established case. The dismissal of the petition was....
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....
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
