Additional evidence in criminal appeal may be allowed when needed to prevent prejudice and failure of justice.

Additional evidence in appeal may be permitted where documents were earlier tendered before the trial court but not formally exhibited, and their production is necessary to advance justice. The Gujarat HC noted that an accused should not be prejudiced by counsel's omission when the material supports the defence and was already sought to be placed on record. It also applied the principle that procedural irregularity warrants interference only if it causes failure of justice. Because the disputed documents were relevant to the defence and the opposite side required an opportunity to cross-examine and adduce rebuttal evidence, the matter was remanded for limited proof of those documents.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellate court should permit additional evidence in the form of the subsequent reply notice and RPAD slip under Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. (ii) Whether refusal to take such evidence on record would occasion failure of justice warranting remand.

Issue (i): Whether the appellate court should permit additional evidence in the form of the subsequent reply notice and RPAD slip under Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The application was made to bring on record documents that had already been tendered before the trial court but were not exhibited. The record showed that the trial court had allowed production of the documents, yet they were not formally proved. The Court held that additional evidence may be permitted where justice so requires, and that the accused should not necessarily suffer for the omission of counsel where the documents were earlier sought to be produced and were material to the defence.

Conclusion: The request to adduce additional evidence was allowed.

Issue (ii): Whether refusal to take such evidence on record would occasion failure of justice warranting remand.

Analysis: The Court applied the principle that procedural irregularity does not justify interference unless a failure of justice has occurred. It noted that the disputed documents directly related to the defence version on the amount advanced and that the opposite side must be given an opportunity to cross-examine the witness proving them and to lead further evidence if necessary. On these facts, excluding the evidence would improperly prejudice the defence and defeat the interests of justice.

Conclusion: The matter was remanded to the trial court for the limited purpose of proving the additional documents and giving the other side an opportunity to respond.

Final Conclusion: The proceeding was not finally concluded on merits of the cheque dishonour dispute, but the appellate court permitted additional evidence and sent the matter back to the trial court for limited further proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: Additional evidence may be allowed in appeal where it is necessary to advance justice and where refusal would cause failure of justice, even if the evidence had earlier been tendered but not formally exhibited.

---