The High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad has dismissed a revision application filed by journalist Ravi Nair, effectively blocking his attempt to introduce additional evidence in an ongoing criminal defamation case initiated by Adani Enterprises Ltd. The order, delivered on November 2, 2026, by Justice R. T. Vachhani, upholds an earlier decision by a Sessions Court in Gandhinagar, which had rejected the request to admit new materials into the appellate record. This development marks a significant procedural setback for the petitioner, who was convicted earlier this year for disseminating allegedly defamatory content.

The dispute originates from a private complaint filed under Section 190(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The complainant alleged that between October 2020 and July 2021, the petitioner engaged in a systematic campaign of defamation through his activity on the social media platform X, formerly known as Twitter, and through articles published on a dedicated website, adaniwatch.org. According to the allegations, these publications were scandalous, false, and misleading, causing substantial damage to the reputation of the company. Following a trial, the Judicial Magistrate First Class in Mansa found the petitioner guilty of defamation under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, sentencing him to one year of simple imprisonment and a fine of ₹5,000.

Appellate Bid Rejected by High Court

Following his conviction, the petitioner moved an appeal before the Sessions Court in Gandhinagar to challenge the verdict. During the pendency of this appeal, the petitioner filed an application under Exhibit-11, invoking Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973—and referencing provisions under the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023—to introduce further documents as evidence. The Sessions Court rejected this request on July 22, 2026, prompting the petitioner to approach the High Court through a revision application.

The petitioner’s legal team, led by Senior Counsel Madhav Khurana, argued that the additional evidence was essential for a fair trial. They contended that the complainant had failed to provide the full context of the disputed material. By placing reliance on the Supreme Court ruling in Asim @ Munmun @ Asif Abdulkarim Solanki v/s. State of Gujarat , the petitioner argued that the court must consider the actual articles and source material published on the website to determine if the allegations of defamation were substantiated. They further asserted that without these documents, a plausible conclusion regarding the legitimacy of the published content could not be reached.

However, counsel for Adani Enterprises Ltd, represented by Senior Counsel Mitesh Amin, vehemently opposed the move. The respondents argued that the application was a tactical delay strategy, noting that the petitioner had ample opportunity to produce these documents during the trial stage before the Magistrate. By failing to reference these documents during the initial examination and cross-examination of prosecution witnesses, the petitioner had forfeited his right to introduce them at the appellate stage.

Dispute Over Additional Evidence

The High Court’s ruling centers on the stringent requirements for admitting additional evidence under Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Justice Vachhani emphasized that the provision is not a vehicle for a fresh trial but a mechanism to ensure justice when crucial, previously unavailable information comes to light despite honest efforts. In his order, Justice Vachhani noted: “To permit the party to produce the additional evidence on being satisfied with the grounds agitated by the petitioner that despite due diligence and honest efforts, the petitioner could not produce the documents in question and those are the documents which touches to the root of the matter and in absence thereof, the petitioner may suffer a huge loss.”

The court’s scrutiny revealed a critical flaw in the petitioner's argument. It was acknowledged by both sides that the documents in question—which were merely links to the articles—were already part of the trial court record. Since the content was already accessible to the court, the invocation of Section 391 was deemed redundant. Justice Vachhani observed: “Without much delving on the other aspects as contended and raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner while confining only to the issue of production of additional evidence when can be permitted as discussed in the preceding paragraphs the need would never arise if the documents sought to be produced as an additional evidence which is already forming the part of the record.”

Judicial Scrutiny of Procedural Diligence

The petitioner also attempted to rely on Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, arguing that the court failed to properly appreciate the evidentiary value of the documents. The High Court rejected this line of reasoning, stating that the issue was purely procedural—whether additional evidence should be permitted at the appellate stage—and not an inquiry into the merits of the evidence itself. The court clarified that the principles of appreciation of evidence under the Evidence Act do not override the specific procedural requirements governing the appellate court's power to record new evidence.

This dismissal leaves the original conviction intact, pending the outcome of the primary appeal currently before the Sessions Court. While the High Court has denied the current application, it has explicitly stated that its observations are limited to the request for additional evidence and should not be interpreted as a reflection on the merits of the ongoing appeal. The parties are now set to continue the appellate process in the Gandhinagar Sessions Court, where the case will be heard on its existing merits without the introduction of the new documentation. The petitioner continues to face the sentence imposed by the trial court while the appellate proceedings remain active.