<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2023 (10) TMI 1356 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312105</link>
    <description>Additional evidence at the appellate stage is an exceptional power under Section 391 CrPC, to be used sparingly only where it is necessary to prevent failure of justice or to enable a correct finding. It cannot be invoked to fill lacunae, reopen a matter after unexplained delay, or prolong proceedings. On the stated facts, the belated request for handwriting expert evidence lacked a substantial basis, the earlier refusal had not been challenged, and the material was not shown to be indispensable for deciding the appeal. The refusal to permit additional evidence was therefore justified, and no interference in supervisory jurisdiction was warranted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 25 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 31 Jan 2024 20:27:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=741951" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (10) TMI 1356 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312105</link>
      <description>Additional evidence at the appellate stage is an exceptional power under Section 391 CrPC, to be used sparingly only where it is necessary to prevent failure of justice or to enable a correct finding. It cannot be invoked to fill lacunae, reopen a matter after unexplained delay, or prolong proceedings. On the stated facts, the belated request for handwriting expert evidence lacked a substantial basis, the earlier refusal had not been challenged, and the material was not shown to be indispensable for deciding the appeal. The refusal to permit additional evidence was therefore justified, and no interference in supervisory jurisdiction was warranted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312105</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>