Additional Evidence U/S 391 CrPC Must Be Allowed Where Necessary To Prevent Failure Of Justice: Telangana High Court

The Telangana High Court has set aside an order of the appellate court refusing to admit additional evidence in a cheque dishonour appeal, reiterating the principle that the power under Section 391 CrPC is to be exercised only when additional evidence is necessary to secure the ends of justice and to prevent failure of justice.

Justice Tirumala Devi Eada allowed the Criminal Petition and set aside the order dated 25.07.2025 passed by the III Additional District Judge, L.B. Nagar.

The de facto complainant had filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner. The trial court convicted the petitioner in 2017. Aggrieved thereby, she preferred an appeal, which is pending.

During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner filed an application under Section 391 CrPC seeking to adduce certain additional documents. It was her case that upon verification of the firm's account books from 2012 to 2016, she noticed that the cheque book containing the subject cheques was missing and that, except for the two subject cheques, no other cheque in that cheque book was utilized. She sought to place these documents on record.

Placing reliance on the decision in Ashok Tshering Bhutia v. The State of Sikkim, the appellate court dismissed the application, holding that the plea amounted to dilatory tactics on the petitioner's part.

Arguing the instant petition, the petitioner contended that the documents sought to be produced were crucial and that no prejudice would be caused to the complainant if they were received as additional evidence.

Conversely, the respondent submitted that the appeal had been pending since 2017 and that the present application was filed only to prolong the proceedings. It was contended that Section 391 CrPC permits additional evidence only in limited circumstances, which were not made out.

The High Court extracted Section 391 CrPC and observed that the provision enables the appellate court to take additional evidence if it considers such evidence to be necessary.

The Court noted that the appellate court relied upon Ashok Tshering Bhutia, wherein it was held that additional evidence does not mean filling up lacunae in the prosecution case and can be taken only in exceptional circumstances.

However, the High Court referred to the decisions in Ajitsinh Chehuji Rathod v. State of Gujarat and Brig. Sukhjeet Singh (Retd) MVC v. State of Uttar Pradesh, wherein it was held that the power under Section 391 CrPC should be exercised where the party was prevented from presenting the evidence despite due diligence or if the facts came to light at a later stage where non-recording of such evidence may lead to failure of justice, and that additional evidence must be necessary not because it would be impossible to pronounce judgment but because there would be failure of justice without it, respectively.

Further, setting aside the appellant court's order, the High Court observed that “the appellate court ought not to have assumed the things and drawn an adverse inference as against the documents that are proposed to be received as evidence”. In view of the above discussion and the decisions relied upon, the High Court held that the petition deserved to be allowed.

Accordingly, the impugned order dated 25.07.2025 was set aside, and the application filed under Section 391 CrPC was allowed. The petitioner was permitted to adduce additional evidence.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, were directed to stand closed.

Case No.: Criminal Petition No. 11058 of 2025

Click Here To Read/Download Order