2018 (4) TMI 1878 - HC - Indian Laws

Appellate Court Upholds Additional Evidence in Criminal Appeal

The Appellate Court allowed the respondent's additional evidence and documents in a Criminal Appeal under Section 391 of the Criminal Procedure Code. ... Appellate power to receive additional evidence under Section 391 Cr.P.C. - necessity test for reception of additional evidence on appeal - admissibility of documentary evidence in xerox form as additional evidence - prohibition on using Section 391 Cr.P.C. to fill gaps in a party's caseAppellate power to receive additional evidence under Section 391 Cr.P.C. - necessity test for reception of additional evidence on appeal - Whether the learned Additional District Judge rightly exercised the power under Section 391(1)(2) Cr.P.C. to receive additional evidence/documents in the criminal appeal. - HELD THAT: - The Court examined Section 391(1) and (2) Cr.P.C. and observed that the appellate court has ample power to receive additional evidence if it concludes that such evidence is necessary. The Additional District Judge found that the particulars of the documents were already mentioned in the respondent's reply notice, that the documents related to the years 1997-1999, that one document was court-certified after inspection of the originals, and that a document dated 17.06.1999 identified the cheque's serial number and its custody by a third person. Those particulars were connected to the defence that the cheque reached the petitioner through a third party. On that basis the Additional District Judge held the documents necessary for disposing of the appeal. The High Court found no manifest error in that exercise of discretion and held the impugned order to be within legal framework. [Paras 8, 9, 10, 11, 15]The exercise of power under Section 391 Cr.P.C. to receive the additional documents was proper and does not warrant interference.Admissibility of documentary evidence in xerox form as additional evidence - Whether the fact that the documents produced were xerox copies warranted rejection of the petitions for additional evidence. - HELD THAT: - The Court held that it was unnecessary at the interlocutory stage to decide whether the documents constituted primary evidence. Objections to the evidential value of xerox copies could be raised at the time of marking the documents in the trial or on further consideration; the mere production of xerox copies in the petition did not by itself vitiate the order receiving the documents. The High Court found the petitioner's objection on this ground to be without substance. [Paras 12]Production of xerox copies in the petitions did not, by itself, justify interference with the order permitting reception of the documents.Prohibition on using Section 391 Cr.P.C. to fill gaps in a party's case - Whether the respondent was impermissibly attempting to fill gaps in his case by producing additional documents under Section 391 Cr.P.C. - HELD THAT: - The Court considered the submission that Section 391 cannot be used to plug gaps in a prosecution or party's case and noted the decision relied upon by the petitioner. However, having regard to the fact that the particulars of the documents were disclosed in the respondent's earlier reply notice and that the documents related to matters pleaded in defence (including custody of the cheque via a third party), the Court concluded that the additional documents were not being produced merely to fill lacunae impermissibly. Consequently the objection that the petitions were being used to fill gaps was rejected. [Paras 13, 14]The additional documents were not produced for the impermissible purpose of filling gaps; the objection based on that ground fails.Final Conclusion: The impugned order of the Additional District Judge dated 09.05.2011 permitting reception of the additional documents under Section 391 Cr.P.C. was within the legal framework; the Criminal Revisions are dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Additional evidence and documents filed in Criminal Appeal.2. Validity of additional evidence and documents.3. Use of xerox copies as evidence.4. Attempt to fill gaps in the case with additional documents.5. Interpretation of Section 391 of the Criminal Procedure Code.Analysis:1. The judgment involved the consideration of additional evidence and documents filed by the respondent in a Criminal Appeal. The respondent sought to introduce additional documents and evidence through petitions under Section 391 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Crl.P.C.). The Appellate Court allowed the petitions, leading to the petitioner filing revisions seeking to set aside the order.2. The petitioner argued that the additional documents submitted were xerox copies and lacked evidential value. The petitioner contended that if the documents were genuine, they should have been presented during the trial. However, the Appellate Court, without delving into the authenticity of the documents, permitted their submission. The respondent justified the submission of additional documents by stating they were related to the defense already disclosed in the reply notice.3. The issue of using xerox copies as evidence was raised by the petitioner. The petitioner objected to the acceptance of xerox copies as primary evidence. The respondent countered by stating that objections regarding the nature of evidence should have been raised during the marking of documents. The Court noted that the form of evidence could be challenged at the appropriate stage.4. The petitioner alleged that the respondent was attempting to fill gaps in the case by introducing additional documents, citing a precedent that disallowed the use of Section 391 of the Crl.P.C. to fill prosecution case gaps. However, the Court found that the additional documents were relevant to the defense already disclosed by the respondent and did not indicate an attempt to fill gaps in the case.5. The interpretation of Section 391 of the Crl.P.C. was crucial in this judgment. The Court analyzed the provisions of Section 391(1) and (2) and emphasized that the Appellate Court had the authority to admit additional evidence if deemed necessary. The Court concluded that the Appellate Court's decision to allow the additional evidence was within the legal framework, as the documents were found to be relevant to the defense presented by the respondent.In conclusion, the Court dismissed the Criminal Revisions, upholding the order of the Appellate Court permitting the submission of additional evidence and documents in the Criminal Appeal.