Additional evidence in criminal appeal requires necessity and reasons; xerox copy objections go to marking, not threshold admissibility.

Section 391 CrPC allows an appellate court to receive additional evidence only when it considers the evidence necessary and records reasons. In this matter, the Madras HC noted that the documents sought to be produced were linked to the defence already disclosed in the reply notice and to the disputed cheque custody issues. Objections that the papers were xerox copies were treated as matters for consideration when marking the documents, not as a ground to refuse receipt at the threshold. The request was also not regarded as an attempt to fill gaps in the defence, so the order permitting additional evidence remained within the statutory framework.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellate court was justified in allowing the respondent's petitions to receive additional documents and adduce additional evidence under Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and whether the order could be interfered with on the grounds that the documents were xerox copies or that the request was intended to fill up gaps in the case.

Analysis: Section 391 empowers the appellate court to receive additional evidence only where it considers such evidence necessary and records reasons. The additional documents were found to relate to the defence already disclosed in the reply notice and to the subject matter in dispute, including circumstances concerning the cheque and its custody. The objections based on the documents being xerox copies were held to be matters for consideration at the stage of marking the documents, not a ground to reject the request for receiving them. The court also found that the application was not an attempt to fill up any gap, since the material sought to be produced was connected with the defence already taken.

Conclusion: The order permitting additional evidence was within the legal framework and did not call for interference. The revisions were dismissed.

---