The appellate court's discretion to admit additional evidence must be exercised judiciously for the ends of justice and not to fill gaps in prosecution.

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON

13.11.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

Dated this the 13^th day of November, 2025 This Crl.M.C. is filed seeking to set aside the order dated

09.01.2019 in Criminal M.P.No.786 of 2019 in Criminal Appeal No.56 of 2016 on the files of the Additional Sessions Judge-III, Mavelikara. Petitioner was the respondent in the Criminal M.P. and appellant in the Criminal Appeal.

2. Petitioner was the sole accused in C.C.No.1634 of 2009 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - I, Chengannur. The prosecution case in brief was that the petitioner had fraudulently and dishonestly, with the intention of cheating the Government and to obtain a job in a foreign country by unlawful means, forged the provisional National Trade Certificate and National Trade Certificate of the State Council for Vocational Training, Government of Kerala. He had used the said certificates as genuine one and had produced them before NORKA on 18.11.2008 for authentication. He was thus accused of committing offences punishable under Sections 465 , 468, 471 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code .

3. In the trial that followed, the petitioner was found guilty and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- under Section 471 of the IPC . Petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No.56 of 2016 before the Additional Sessions Judge - III, Mavelikara, challenging his conviction. In the said Criminal Appeal, the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State filed a Criminal M.P. invoking Sections 311 and 391 Cr.P.C. seeking re-examination of Senior Superintendent, ITI Directorate, Thiruvananthapuram, for the reason such re-examination was needed to produce and mark a Form B register. Permission to examine the Principal, SNIET ITC (PW2) to prove the admission register for the period 2003-2005 was also sought. The said application, though opposed by the petitioner, was allowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide Annexure C order.

Aggrieved by the same, this Crl.M.C. is filed.

4. Heard Sri.P.Thomas Geeverghese, Advocate for the petitioner and Smt.Maya M.N., learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Annexure C order of the Additional Sessions Judge is erroneous and liable to be set aside. It is submitted that the prosecution had already examined PW2 and PW3 in the year 2011 and 2012 respectively at the trial stage and had sufficient opportunity to establish their case. After the petitioner had been convicted, in the appeal filed by him, the present attempt to seek to re-examine and procure further documentary evidence for filling up the gaps in the prosecution is impermissible in law. It is submitted that the Additional Sessions Judge had overlooked the fact that PW2 had neither in his 161 statement nor in his deposition stated anything about the admission register which is now sought to be produced by the prosecution by re-examining PW2. Similarly, PW3 too had not stated anything about Mark Form B register in the deposition or 161 statement, which is now sought to be brought into record by re-examining him. The learned Additional Sessions Judge erred in overlooking the said aspect. No valid reason has been stated by the Additional Sessions Judge while allowing the petition filed by the prosecution. Reliance is placed on the dictum laid down in Rajeswar Prasad Misra v. The State of W.B. and another [ AIR 1965 SC 1887 ] andRambhau and another v. State of Maharashtra [AIR 2001 SC 2120 ; (2001) 4 SCC