RAMDAS MADHAVRAO KORDE v. SHRIKANT SUDHAKAR DAHALE
Appellate Court’s Discretionary Power Under Section 391 Cr.P.C. to Admit Additional Evidence and Documents Necessary for Just Decision Regardless of Specific Procedural Invocations.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2026:BHC-AUG:8523
Decision Date: 25-02-2026
List of Laws
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 391); Constitution of India (Article 227); Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Criminal Law - Appellate Jurisdiction and Additional Evidence
- Facts: The respondent (original accused) was convicted by a trial court for the dishonour of a cheque. During the pendency of his criminal appeal, the respondent filed applications (Exhibits 38 and 41) seeking to produce certain certified copies of documents to substantiate his defense. He contended that the cheques were issued only as security for a money-lending transaction involving a third party who allegedly misused them. The petitioner (original complainant) opposed these applications, arguing that the accused had ample opportunity to present these documents during the trial and that the applications did not specifically pray for leading "additional evidence" under the statutory framework.
- Procedural Posture: The Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, allowed the applications, observing that the documents were necessary for deciding the appeal and should be treated as additional evidence. The petitioner challenged these interlocutory orders before the Bombay High Court through a Criminal Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
- Issue: Whether an appellate court can exercise powers under Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to treat documents as additional evidence even if the applicant did not specifically invoke that section or explicitly pray to lead "additional evidence".
- Holding: Yes, the High Court held that the appellate court's power to take additional evidence is a discretionary power intended to achieve the ends of justice and can be exercised if the court finds such evidence necessary for a just decision.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that Section 391 of the Cr.P.C. confers inherent-like powers on the appellate court to ensure justice is not miscarried. These powers are not restricted by "straitjacket" procedures or the specific nomenclature used in an application. If the court finds the documents necessary for deciding the case on merits, it can record reasons and permit them. Furthermore, since the documents in question were certified copies and the complainant had already been cross-examined on the underlying defense, no prejudice was caused. The Court relied on the Supreme Court precedent in "Brig. Sukhjeet Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh", affirming that a convicted person has the right to raise all grounds in appeal, including leading additional evidence necessary for a proper adjudication.
🔒 For Members Only