S. 391 CrPC | Court's Power To Record Additional Evidence Must Be Exercised In Rare & Exceptional Cases: Karnataka HC Reiterates

The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that a court's power to record additional evidence under Section 391 Criminal Procedure Code, should only be exercised when the party making such request was prevented from presenting the said evidence in the trial, despite due diligence.

The high court said that though the concerned Court has the power to secure additional evidence under Section 391 of the Cr.P.C., but it had been observed by the Supreme Court and other Courts in various judgments, that this power is to be "exercised in rare and exceptional cases".

For context, Section 391 (Appellate Court may take further evidence or direct it to be taken) states that in dealing with any appeal, the Appellate Court, if it thinks additional evidence to be necessary, shall record its reasons and may either take such evidence itself, or direct it to be taken by a Magistrate, or when the Appellate Court is a High Court, by a Court of Session or a Magistrate.

It states that when the additional evidence is taken by the Court of Session or the Magistrate, it or he shall certify such evidence to the Appellate Court, and such Court shall thereupon proceed to dispose of the appeal. 

Justice M Nagaprasanna made the observation while dismissing a petition filed by one J Ramesh who has challenged the order of the session court rejecting his application made calling for certain documents.

The high court said:

"On a coalesce judgments rendered by the Apex Court and that of other High Courts what would unmistakably emerge is, that power to record additional evidence under Section 391 of the Cr.P.C. should only be exercised when the party making such request was prevented from presenting the said evidence in the trial, despite due diligence. In the case at hand, the petitioner makes an attempt to get those documents, it is rejected, the rejection has become final. The same relief is now sought in the appellate stage. This Court, cannot but infer that it is only a ruse to drag the proceedings further.”

The present case the high court said that was not an exceptional case as projected by the petitioner. 

The petitioner has been convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, during the trial before the Magistrate court he had moved an application under Section 91 of CrPC, which came to be rejected and on conviction he preferred an appeal before the Sessions court.

There he moved an application under Section 391 (1) calling for certain documents, which according to him are vital and material to prove his innocence. The court rejected the application.

Petitioner contended that Section 391 of the Cr.P.C empowers the concerned Court to summon documents or consider additional evidence at any stage. Therefore, it is his case that the opportunity he lost before the trial Court should be permitted in the Court of Sessions.

The respondent opposed the plea contending that power under Section 391 of the Cr.P.C. is not absolute. It should be exercised only in exceptional cases. This case is not an exception.

Finding that this was not an exceptional case for exercise of power under Section 391 CrPC the high court said, “In the light of the aforesaid circumstances, finding no merit to interfere with the well reasoned order of the concerned Court, the petition being devoid of merit, stands rejected.”

Appearance: Advocate B.SIDDESHWARA for Petitioner.

Senior Advocate Sandesh J Chouta for Advocate Hanumanthappa A for Respondent.

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 144

Case Title: J Ramesh AND M/s Lakshmi Precious Jewellery Private Ltd.

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.12045 OF 2024

Click Here To Read/Download Order