1 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1511 of 2025 Kheman Lal Sahu S/o Shri Jairam Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o Village - Patharri, Police Station And District - Gariyaband (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh through Station House Officer, Police Station - Magarlod, District - Dhamtari (C.G.). 2 - Smt. Triveni Sahu W/o Shri Khuman Sahu Aged About 44 Years R/o Village - Chivri, Police Station - Kurud, District - Dhamtari (C.G.). 3 - Smt. Menuka Kanwar (Diwan) W/o Shri Sanjay Diwan Aged About 34 Years R/o Village - Saragaon, Police Station - Chhura, District - Gariyaband (C.G.). 4 - Lalesh Kumar S/o Shri Bramhalal Sahu Aged About 38 Years R/o Village - Limtara, Police Station - Arjuni, District - Dhamtari (C.G.). 5 - Suresh Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Shivprasad Aged About 41 Years R/o Village - Gabdi, Police Station - Ranitarai, District - Durg (C.G.). 6 - Ku. Durga Sahu D/o Shri Kartik Lal Sahu Aged About 41 Years R/o Village - Korra, Police Station - Bakhra, District - Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Respondents For the petitioner : Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Karan Bahrani, Advocate. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) ALLENA ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by ALLENA ANNAJEE RAO Date: 2026.01.19 17:22:45 +0530 2 Order on Board 14/01/2026 1. By this revision filed under section 438 read with section 442 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioner prays for a direction to set aside the impugned order dated 04.11.2025 (Annexure A-1) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurud, District – Dhamtari (C.G) in Criminal Appeal No.10/2020 and further to take on record the documents listed in the application filed u/s 391 of CrPC and decide the criminal appeal afresh after affording opportunity to the parties. 2. The appellant and other accused were convicted by the CJM, Dhamtari in Criminal Case No.77/2019 for the offence punishable u/s 420 & 468 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 5 years each with fine of Rs.10,000/- each. They were also convicted u/s 471 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 1 year with fine of Rs.5000/- each. Against the said judgment of conviction and sentence, the accused have filed appeal before the Addl. Sessions Judge Kurud to the Court of ASJ, Dhamtari. During the pendency of appeal, the present applicant has filed the application u/s 391 of CrPC before the appellate Court for taking documents on record for adjudication of the case, which has been rejected by the appellate court. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the documents sought to be produced u/s 391 CrPC were obtained through RTI in 2021-2022 which were not within the possession of the applicant at the time of trial and the appellate Court has completely ignored the crucial aspect and wrongly held that no effort was made for 7 years. He submits that the documents go to the very root of the matter and prove that the alleged forgery was actually caused by the fault of Selection/Verification Committee and not by the applicant. He placed reliance on decisions of the Supreme 3 Court in Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat (2006) 3 SCC 374 and Natasha Singh V. CBI (2013) 5 SCC 741 and submits that the application u/s 391 cannot be rejected the ground of mere technicalities which would defeat the ends of justice. He submits that the discretion exercised by the learned appellate Court is wholly arbitrary and contrary to the settled judicial precedents rendering the order liable to be set aside. 4. Per contra, learned State Counsel submits that after 7 years the applicant has levelled the allegations, therefore, the appellate Court has rightly rejected the application. 5. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and have also perused the material on record. 6. As per Section 391 of CrPC, the Appellate Court may take further evidence or direct it to be taken. Section 391 reads as under : Sec. 391. Appellate Court may take further evidence or direct it to be taken.- (1) In dealing with any appeal under this Chapter, 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. (2) When the additional evidence is taken by the Court of Sessions 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. (3) The accused or his pleader shall have the right to be present when the additional evidence is taken. (4) The taking of evidence under this section shall be subject to the provisions of Chapter XXIII, as if it were an inquiry. 7. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh and Anr. Versus State of Gujarat and others (2004) 4 SCC 158 held that the appellate courts have the power u/s 391 of CrPC to direct the production of additional evidence to ensure a fair trial and prevent miscarriages of 4 justice. Paras 47, 48 & 49, the Court held thus : 47. Section 391 of the Code is another salutary provision which clothes the Courts with the power to effectively decide an appeal. Though Section 386 envisages the normal and ordinary manner and method of disposal of an appeal, yet it does not and cannot be said to exhaustively enumerate the modes by which alone the Court can deal with an appeal. Section 391 is one such exception to the ordinary rule and if the appellate Court considers additional evidence to be necessary, the provisions in Section 386 and Section 391 have to be harmoniously considered to enable the appeal to be considered and disposed of also in the light of the additional evidence as well. For this purpose it is open to the appellate Court to call for further evidence before the appeal is disposed of. The appellate Court can direct the taking up of further evidence in support of the prosecution; a fortiori it is open to the court to direct that the accused persons may also be given a chance of adducing further evidence. Section 391 is in the nature of an exception to the general rule and the powers under it must also be exercised with great care, specially on behalf of the prosecution lest the admission of additional evidence for the prosecution operates in a manner prejudicial to the defence of the accused. The primary object of Section 391 is the prevention of guilty man's escape through some careless or ignorant proceedings before a Court or vindication of an innocent person wrongfully accused. Where the court through some carelessness or ignorance has omitted to record the circumstances essential to elucidation of truth, the exercise of powers under Section 391 is desirable. 48. The legislature intent in enacting Section 391 appears to be the empowerment of the appellate court to see that justice is done between the prosecutor and the persons prosecuted and if the appellate Court finds that certain evidence is necessary in order to enable it to give a correct and proper findings, it would be justified in taking action under Section 391. 49. There is no restriction in the wording of Section 391 either as to the nature of the evidence or that it is to be taken for the prosecution only or that the provisions of the Section are only to be invoked when formal proof for the prosecution is necessary. If the appellate Court thinks that it is necessary in the interest of justice to take additional evidence it shall do so. There is nothing in the provision limiting it to cases where there has been merely some formal defect. The matter is one of the discretion of the appellate Court. As reiterated supra the ends of justice are not satisfied only when the accused in a criminal case is 5 acquitted. The community acting through the State and the public prosecutor is also entitled to justice. The cause of the community deserves equal treatment at the hands of the Court in the discharge of its judicial functions. (Emphasis supplied) 8. In the instant case, the grounds taken for rejecting the application in the impugned order is that the accused/applicant has delayed production of the documents obtained under the Right to Information Act. It is also mentioned that the irregularities committed by the selection and screening committee will be considered at the time of decision. Thus, the complete validity and necessity of the application have not been considered, which is essentially necessary. 9. A perusal of the impugned order further shows that while rejecting the application filed u/s 391 of CrPC the learned appellate Court fixed the case for final arguments. Since the appeal is still pending and in view of the above discussion, the impugned order dated 04.11.2025 passed by the appellate Court is set aside and the applicant is directed to file a fresh application u/s 391 of CrPC before the appellate Court and on such an application being filed, the appellate Court shall consider and decide the said application in the light of the relevant complete legal provisions. 10. With the above observation/direction, this petition is finally disposed of. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Rao