The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that the discretionary power under Section 391 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) to admit additional evidence at the appellate stage is limited to exceptional cases where a party was unable to present such evidence at trial despite exercising due diligence.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna made the observation while dismissing Criminal Petition No. 12045 of 2024 filed by J. Ramesh, who sought to overturn the Sessions Court’s rejection of his application for additional evidence in a pending appeal against conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Case Background
The petitioner, J. Ramesh, was convicted on December 29, 2023, by the trial court for issuing dishonoured cheques to M/s Lakshmi Precious Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. He filed an appeal (Crl.A. No. 149/2024) before the Sessions Court. During the trial, the petitioner had filed an application under Section 91 CrPC seeking production of the complainant’s financial documents, which was rejected on June 27, 2023. That rejection was not challenged and attained finality.
In the appellate proceedings, the petitioner filed a fresh application under Section 391 CrPC seeking the same documents, including financial statements, bank account statements, and VAT returns of the complainant company. He argued that these documents were necessary to prove that the cheques were misused and that he had no outstanding liability.
Arguments and Observations
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that Section 391 CrPC allowed the appellate court to take additional evidence to prevent miscarriage of justice and that denial of this opportunity would cause serious prejudice.
Opposing the plea, Senior Counsel Sandesh J. Chouta, appearing for the respondent company, argued that the power under Section 391 is not meant to provide repeated opportunities for evidence already declined at trial. The respondent contended that the application was a tactic to delay proceedings, as similar relief had already been rejected under Section 91 CrPC.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna referred extensively to judicial precedents, including Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh v. State of Gujarat [(2004) 4 SCC 158], Ajitsinh Chehuji Rathod v. State of Gujarat [(2024) 4 SCC 453], and rulings from the Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat High Courts. The Court noted:
“Power to record additional evidence under Section 391 of the Cr.P.C. should only be exercised when the party making such request was prevented from presenting the said evidence in the trial, despite due diligence.”
The Court found that the petitioner’s earlier application under Section 91 CrPC had been thoroughly adjudicated and rejected on merits. Seeking the same relief under a different provision without any new justification did not meet the threshold of an exceptional case warranting interference.
Conclusion
Holding that there was no merit in the petition, the High Court dismissed the plea, observing:
“This Court, cannot but infer that it is only a ruse to drag the proceedings further… such rare or exceptional case is not the one that is projected by the petitioner.”
The Court affirmed that the power under Section 391 CrPC is not an avenue for filling evidentiary gaps already addressed at trial, and must be exercised with restraint to uphold the integrity of judicial proceedings.
