Appellate power to take additional evidence can cure a Section 313 irregularity where no prejudice is caused to the accused.

Section 391 CrPC gives an appellate court a wide but exceptional discretion to take additional evidence where necessary to secure justice, and it may be used to correct a mere irregularity in an incomplete Section 313 examination if no prejudice is caused to the accused. Applying that approach, the omission was treated as curable and did not vitiate the conviction. On the corruption charge, the Court held that demand, recovery of tainted currency, surrounding circumstances, and the role attributed to the co-accused established the offence, even without direct proof of momentary acceptance by the principal accused. The convictions and sentences were therefore affirmed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellate court could invoke Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to take additional evidence and examine the accused to cure an omission in the Section 313 examination, and whether the prosecution had proved the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification so as to sustain the conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Issue (i): Whether the appellate court could invoke Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to take additional evidence and examine the accused to cure an omission in the Section 313 examination.

Analysis: Section 391 confers a wide but cautious discretion on the appellate court to take further evidence where it is necessary, but the power is exceptional and must be exercised to advance justice, not to fill up gaps in the prosecution case or to cause prejudice to the accused. An omission to put a material circumstance in the Section 313 examination is not invariably incurable; where the defect is only an irregularity and does not go to the root of the matter, the appellate court may take corrective steps if the overall purpose is to secure a fair adjudication. On the facts, the additional examination was treated as a rectification of an irregularity and not as a retrial.

Conclusion: The High Court was justified in resorting to Section 391, and the omission in the Section 313 examination did not vitiate the conviction.

Issue (ii): Whether the prosecution had proved the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification so as to sustain the conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Analysis: The evidence was assessed on the basis of the complainant, panch witnesses, surrounding circumstances, and the seizure of tainted currency. The demand was found proved on the earlier date, and the later recovery of the tainted notes, coupled with the intermediary acts attributed to the second accused, supported the prosecution case. The absence of direct acceptance by the principal accused at the exact moment did not dislodge the chain of circumstances. The Court held that the findings of the High Court on proof of demand, acceptance, and abetment were sustainable.

Conclusion: The prosecution proved the offence, and the convictions of both accused were upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, and the conviction and sentences recorded by the High Court were affirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: The appellate court may take additional evidence under Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to cure a mere irregularity if it is necessary to secure justice and does not prejudice the accused, and a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 may be sustained on reliable circumstantial and testimonial evidence proving demand, recovery, and abetment.

---