In Brief
A retired Army officer was convicted of cheating in connection with a failed land sale transaction of a regimental trust. He sought to lead evidence at the appellate stage to prove a 1989 Trust Deed and Resolution authorizing the sale, which the trial court had not permitted him to prove. The High Court rejected his application, calling it belated and malafide. The Supreme Court set aside that rejection, holding that the appellate court has wide discretion under Section 391 Cr.P.C. to permit additional evidence when necessary to secure justice. Since the same Trust Deed, when proved in a parallel case with identical allegations, had resulted in the appellant's acquittal, the Court found the evidence material to determining criminal intent.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.