Section 391 Cr.P.C. Is A Safety Valve Against Miscarriage Of Justice: Telangana High Court Reopens Door For Additional Evidence In NI Act Appeal

“Additional Evidence Is Necessary Not Because Judgment Cannot Be Pronounced, But Because There Would Be Failure Of Justice Without It”, In a reportable and significant ruling strengthening the appellate court’s duty to ensure substantive justice, the Telangana High Court on 18/11/2025 held that an application under Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be dismissed by prematurely assessing the probative value of the proposed evidence.

Hon’ble Smt. Justice Tirumala Devi Eada set aside the order of the III Additional District Judge, L.B. Nagar, R.R. District, which had rejected the accused’s plea to adduce additional evidence in an appeal arising out of conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Allowing the petition, the Court reaffirmed the settled principle laid down by the Supreme Court that additional evidence at the appellate stage is warranted “not because it would be impossible to pronounce judgment but because there would be failure of justice without it.”

The impugned order dated 25.07.2025 was quashed and the petitioner was permitted to produce additional documents in the pending criminal appeal.

Conviction Under Section 138 NI Act And Appeal Pending Since 2017

The petitioner–accused had been convicted in 2017 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Challenging the conviction, she filed Criminal Appeal No.859 of 2017 before the appellate court, which remained pending.

During the pendency of the appeal, she moved an application under Section 391 Cr.P.C. seeking to produce additional documents, including ledgers and cheque records allegedly maintained by her husband. According to her, upon verifying the firm’s accounts from 2012 to 2016, she discovered that the cheque book containing the subject cheques was missing and that only two cheques had been used, allegedly by the complainant.

She contended that these documents were crucial to demonstrate the circumstances under which the cheques came into the complainant’s custody and that they had come to light only upon subsequent scrutiny of account books.

The appellate court dismissed the application, observing that it was a delay tactic and holding that even if the documents were produced, they would not conclusively prove unlawful custody of the cheques.

High Court’s Intervention – “Appellate Court Ought Not To Draw Adverse Inference At This Stage”

The High Court found fault with the reasoning adopted by the appellate court. It noted that while considering an application under Section 391 Cr.P.C., the appellate court is required to assess whether the evidence is necessary for a just decision of the appeal, not whether it conclusively establishes the defence.

The 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 in evidence.”

By evaluating the ultimate effect of the documents at the threshold stage, the appellate court had effectively prejudged the matter, which runs contrary to the very object of Section 391 Cr.P.C.

Scope Of Section 391 Cr.P.C. – A Wide But Judicial Discretion

Extracting Section 391 Cr.P.C., the Court emphasized that the appellate court may take additional evidence if it considers such evidence “necessary.” This necessity is not confined to situations where judgment cannot otherwise be delivered.

Placing reliance on Ajitsinh Chehuji Rathod v. State of Gujarat (2024) 4 SCC 453, the Court reiterated that additional evidence may be permitted where the party was prevented from producing it despite due diligence or where relevant facts came to light during the pendency of the appeal, and where non-recording of such evidence may lead to failure of justice.

Further relying on Brig. Sukhjeet Singh (Retd.) MVC v. State of U.P. and the authoritative pronouncement in Rajeswar Prasad Misra v. State of West Bengal, the Court quoted the principle 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.”

The High Court underscored that though the discretion under Section 391 is wide, it must be exercised judiciously, keeping in view the overarching goal of securing the ends of justice.

Delay Allegation Not A Ground To Shut Out Relevant Evidence

The respondent had argued that the appeal had been pending since 2017 and that the application filed in 2025 was a clear attempt to delay proceedings and avoid payment of a legally enforceable debt.

However, the High Court held that mere delay cannot be the sole ground to reject an application under Section 391 Cr.P.C. if the evidence sought to be produced appears relevant and necessary for just adjudication. The determinative question is whether its absence may occasion miscarriage of justice.

Conviction Appeal To Be Decided With Full Evidentiary Canvas

Allowing the Criminal Petition, the High Court set aside the order dated 25.07.2025 passed in Crl.M.P. No.22 of 2023 in Crl.A. No.859 of 2017 and permitted the petitioner to adduce additional evidence. Miscellaneous petitions were closed.

The ruling sends a clear message to appellate courts dealing with Section 138 NI Act convictions that Section 391 Cr.P.C. is not a technical formality but a substantive safeguard. The provision serves as a “safety valve” to prevent miscarriage of justice and must be invoked whenever the absence of relevant material may impair a fair and complete adjudication of the appeal.

Date of Decision: 18/11/2025