https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298800 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. en-us Wed, 01 Feb 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 20 Nov 2021 10:43:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298800 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 01 Feb 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298800