Additional evidence cannot introduce a new factual defence on appeal when signatures were already admitted at trial.

In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the appellate court was held justified in refusing expert examination of promissory notes and in declining additional evidence under Section 391 CrPC. The accused had admitted the signatures at trial, but sought to raise alleged material alteration of the dates for the first time on appeal. The court held that Section 391 confers wide discretion, yet it cannot be used to introduce a new factual defence, reopen the case, or turn the appeal into a retrial. The request for expert opinion was treated as unnecessary opinion evidence, and the challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellate court was justified in refusing to permit the promissory notes to be sent for expert examination and in declining to receive additional evidence on the ground of alleged material alteration raised for the first time in appeal.

Analysis: The prosecution arose out of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and the petitioner had unequivocally admitted his signatures on the promissory notes during trial. The alleged material alteration of the dates was not pleaded before the trial court, and the defence sought to introduce that factual issue only at the appellate stage. While Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 gives wide discretion to receive additional evidence, that power cannot be used to introduce a new factual plea, reopen the case, or convert the appeal into a retrial. The expert opinion sought would only amount to opinion evidence and no useful purpose would be served by sending the documents for scrutiny.

Conclusion: The refusal to send the promissory notes for expert examination was and the revision petitioner was not entitled to raise the plea of material alteration for the first time in appeal; the challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The revisional challenge to the appellate court's refusal to permit expert examination was rejected, and the conviction-related appeals were left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A new factual defence cannot ordinarily be introduced for the first time at the appellate stage through a request for additional evidence under Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, especially where the accused had already admitted the foundational signatures during trial.

---