https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448853 Additional evidence at the appellate stage under Section 391 CrPC is exceptional and cannot be used to fill gaps in the defence unless due diligence is shown or omission would cause failure of justice. The accused had not challenged the cheque signature effectively at trial, and the presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act remained unrebutted, so refusal to allow handwriting-expert evidence was justified. For the same reason, the appellate court was not required to summon a postal official to dispute service of notice under Section 138, since service could be assessed on the existing record and the court was not bound to collect defence evidence for the accused. en-us Mon, 29 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 01 Feb 2024 07:43:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448853 Additional evidence at the appellate stage under Section 391 CrPC is exceptional and cannot be used to fill gaps in the defence unless due diligence is shown or omission would cause failure of justice. The accused had not challenged the cheque signature effectively at trial, and the presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act remained unrebutted, so refusal to allow handwriting-expert evidence was justified. For the same reason, the appellate court was not required to summon a postal official to dispute service of notice under Section 138, since service could be assessed on the existing record and the court was not bound to collect defence evidence for the accused. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 29 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448853