TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the petitioner had made out a case for permitting further cross-examination of the complainant as additional evidence under Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Analysis: The petitioner sought to reopen the evidence stage after the complainant had already been extensively cross-examined. The request was made after a substantial delay, and no sufficient cause was shown to justify why the additional cross-examination had not been pursued earlier despite opportunity. The record also showed that the defence plea regarding the alleged email and the complainant's association with a third person had already been dealt with in cross-examination, while the petitioner had not examined the proposed third person to substantiate the defence. Section 391 is intended for limited use where additional evidence is necessary and where non-admission would risk failure of justice, not to prolong proceedings or fill gaps in the defence case.
Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to further cross-examination or additional evidence, and the refusal to allow it was upheld against the petitioner.
Final Conclusion: The petition failed on merits, and the challenge to the order rejecting additional evidence was rejected.
Ratio Decidendi: Additional evidence in appeal under Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is permissible only on a showing of necessity, due diligence, and potential failure of justice, and it cannot be invoked merely to reopen already examined issues or delay criminal proceedings.
TaxTMI 
