Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 · Chapter XXIX: Appeals
Section 391: Appellate Court may take further evidence or direct it to be taken
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 from 1 July 2024. It still applies to matters and proceedings from before that date, as the repealing law provides.
In plain words
An appellate court that finds additional evidence necessary must record reasons and can take it itself or have a Magistrate (or for a High Court, a Court of Session) take and certify it. The accused or their pleader can be present.
A simplified explanation, prepared with AI assistance from the official text below and checked automatically against it for numbers and cross-references. The official text is the law and prevails over this summary. Not legal advice.
Official text
(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. 1. Ins. by Act 25 of 2005, s. 33 (w.e.f. 23-6-2006).
(2) 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.
(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.
Corresponding sections were matched by comparing the wording of both official texts, and for the IPC and BNS, also against a published correspondence table. Wording, punishments and structure often changed, so read both sections before relying on the match.
Source: India Code (Legislative Department), the text of the Act as it stood before its repeal. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here. Official text on India Code.
Supreme Court judgments citing the section 391
-
Kailas S/o Bajirao Pawar v. The State of Maharashtra
Issue arose whether the High Court was justified in ordering a re-trial; if not, then what would be the appropriate order that may be passed in this appeal.
-
Waris v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Whether Trial Court ought to have given proper time and opportunity to the legal aid defence counsel to prepare the matter and should have deferred the cross-examination of PW-1 by a reasonable time so as to ensure…
-
Sudershan Singh Wazir v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors.
Issue arose as regards the correctness of orders passed by the High Court staying the discharge of the accused and directing him to surrender before the trial court.
-
Irfan Alias Bhayu Mevati v. State of Madhya Pradesh
In a case where the trial court relied upon the DNA report, whether the non-examination of the scientific experts involved in the process of conducting DNA profiling examination and issuing the report, led to the…
- Rajesh Khanna v. M/S Olam Agro India Ltd
- Rajesh Khanna v. M/S Olam Agro India Ltd
- Manisha v. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Ors
- Ms. Kt v. Gnct of Delhi & Anr
- Manvir @ Manish v. State
- Rajesh Marwah v. State & Anr
-
Ajitsinh Chehuji Rathod v. State of Gujarat & Anr.
Appellant-accused convicted u/s.138, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, had claimed mismatch of signatures on the cheque in question. His application for comparison of the signature as appearing on the cheque through the…
- Bimalendu Ghosh Dastidar v. State & Ors
- Raj Singh v. Satya Pal Singh
-
Pawan Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
The question which arise for determination is whether the appellant was a juvenile at the time of commission of offence.
- Mohd. Irshad v. The State (Nct of Delhi)
- Harendra Rai v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
- State of Rajasthan v. Asharam @ Ashumal
- Lakhan Singh v. Amarjeet Singh & Anr
- P. Ponnusamy v. The State of Tamil Nadu
- Varsha Garg v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
- A.T. Mydeen and Another v. The Assistant Commissioner, Customs Department
- Nasib Singh v. The State of Punjab & Anr.
- Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal and Ors.
- State of NCT of Delhi v. Shiv Charan Bansal & Ors.
- Haribhai Malaviya and Ors. v. The State of Gujarat and Anr.
- Atma Ram & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan
- Brig. Sukhjeet Singh (Retd.) Mvc v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
- Shanthamalleshappa v. State of Karnataka
- State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) v. Pankaj Chaudhary and Ors.
- Mukesh v. State of NCT of Delhi
- Dinubhai Boghabhai Solanki v. State of Gujarat & Ors.
- Pooja Pal v. Union of India and Ors.
- State of Rajasthan v. Salman Salim Khan
- Laut Kumar Yadav @ Kuri v. State of Utiar Pradesh
- Sanaullah Khan v. State of Bihar
- Samaj Parivartan Samudaya & Ors. v. State of Karnataka &Ors.
- Sudevanand v. State Through CBI
- B.N. Shivanna v. Advanta India Limited & Anr.
- Ashok Tshering Bhutia v. State of Sikkim
- Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma v. State (Nct of Delhi)
- Dilip Premnarayan Tiwari and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra
- Chand Patel v. Bismillah Begum and Anr.
- Zahira Habibullah Sheikh and Anr . v. State of Gujarat and Ors.
- Zahira Habibullah Sheikh and Anr. Etc. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. Etc.
- Zahira Habibulla H Sheikh and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors.
- Anwar Chand Sab Nanadikar v. State of Karnataka
- Rambhau and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra
- State of U.P. v. Sikander Ali and Ors.
- Kehar Singh & Ors. v. State (Delhi Admn.)
- State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal & Anr.
- Salim Zia v. State of U.P.