JUDGMENT : A. Pasayat, J. - During pendency of this revision application filed by petitioners, eleven in number, an application under Section, 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'the Code') was filed for acceptance of additional evidence. A counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite party to the application. 2. Background facts in which the revision came to be filed before this Court are to the following effect. The opposite party herein filed a complaint inter alia on the ground that his deceased father had purchased 62 decimals of land in plot No. 1403 of khata No. 204 in the year 1964 from one Rama Chandra Naik, his father and after him, he was in peaceful possession of the same. In the year 1984 he had raised various varieties of paddy on the disputed land. On 21-11-1984 the accused persons cut and removed the unripe crop notwithstanding protest by the opposite party complainant. The accused persons took the plea that the disputed land was in cultivating possession of petitioners 1 and 3, who had raised crop in the year 1984. It was their case that since they had raised the crop they had cut and removed the same. The learned Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, Banki (in short 'the SDJM') found that there was no material to sustain the plea that the removal of paddy was in furtherance of a bona fide claim of right to property. Therefore, he found the petitioners guilty u/s 379, Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC') but acquitted them of the charges under Sections 323/504,IPC. The alternative defence plea for release under the provisions of Probation of Offenders' Act, 1958 did not find acceptance by the learned SDJM. Petitioner No. 1 was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 600/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. Rest of the petitioners were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100/ each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. It was stipulated that on realisation of the fine amount, a sum of Rs. 1500/- shall be paid to the complainant as compensation. In appeal, the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack affirmed the conviction and sentence. 3. 100/ each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. It was stipulated that on realisation of the fine amount, a sum of Rs. 1500/- shall be paid to the complainant as compensation. In appeal, the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack affirmed the conviction and sentence. 3. The primary ground on 'which the application for acceptance of additional evidence has been moved is that previously also false implications were made, and in three different occasions the appellate Court set aside the conviction and sentence originally awarded by the learned SDJM, Banki. According to the learned counsel for petitioners, the allegations were self-same and the conclusions were in favour of the petitioners in the appellate Court. 4. The learned counsel for opposite party, however, submits that these judgments have no relevance so far as the present case is concerned and they do not in any way further the case of the petitioners. As a matter of fact, according to him, the plea of bona fide claim of right was turned down by the appellate Court at least in two of the judgments, which are sought to be introduced as additional evidence. 5. The legislative object in enacting Section 391 appears to be the prevention of a guilty man's escape through some careless or ignorant proceedings of a Magistrate, or vindication of the plea of Innocence by an accused wrongfully dragged to Court to face trial. The intention seems to be that the appellate Court should be empowered to see that justice is done between the prosecutor and the prosecuted. Ultimately the truth has to prevail. If the appellate Court finds that some evidence is necessary for a proper adjudication, the power u/s 391 can be exercised. Section 386 deals with the power of an appellate Court. It does not exhaustively deal with the manner and method by which a Court can deal with an appeal. However, it has power to direct further enquiry, re-trial and commitment. Section 391 in general terms permits the appellate Court to take additional evidence. The power u/s 391 must be exercised with great care especially when the prosecutor wants additional evidence to be led. That is because the acceptance of additional evidence may operate in a manner prejudicial to the defence of the accused. Section 391 in general terms permits the appellate Court to take additional evidence. The power u/s 391 must be exercised with great care especially when the prosecutor wants additional evidence to be led. That is because the acceptance of additional evidence may operate in a manner prejudicial to the defence of the accused. This is evident from Sub-section (3) of Section 391 which imperates presence of the accused or his- pleader when additional evidence is taken. Sub-section (4) deals with the manner of taking evidence and indicates that taking of evidence u/s 391 is subject to the provisions of Chapter XXIII of the Code as if it was an inquiry. However, greater latitude should be given to the Court while dealing with a prayer for acceptance of additional evidence when made by the accused. The appellate Court may either take the 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 if it thinks that the additional evidence is necessary to be taken. Reasons are to be recorded before it either takes such evidence itself or issues a direction for taking such evidence by the indicated Court. 6. Coming to the facts of the present case, I find that there appears to be series of litigations between the parties. What would be the effect or the evidentiary value of the judgments rendered in other proceedings is a matter for consideration of the Court. There can be no hard and fast rule in that regard. The decision in a case is not in the nature of words of a statute. A decision is rendered in relation to the facts of a case. A decision is an authority for what it actually decides and not what logically follows from it, and therefore, there is always danger in treating words in a decision as if they were words in a legislative enactment. However, it cannot be lost sight of that judgments in earlier proceedings throw light on the conduct and intention of the parties. They have definitely persuasive value, whatever be its extent. In the peculiar circumstances, I therefore accept the prayer of the petitioners to treat the judgments and other documents as enumerated below as additional evidence. However, it cannot be lost sight of that judgments in earlier proceedings throw light on the conduct and intention of the parties. They have definitely persuasive value, whatever be its extent. In the peculiar circumstances, I therefore accept the prayer of the petitioners to treat the judgments and other documents as enumerated below as additional evidence. (i) Certified copy of the judgment passed in Criminal Appeal No. 191 of 1982 of the Court of Addl. Dist. and Sessions Judge, Cuttack on 17-8-1933. (ii) Certified copy of the judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 160 of 1984 of the Court of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Cuttack, passed on 24-5-1986. (iii) Judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 122 of 1983 of the Court of Sessions Judge, Cuttack passed on 2-3-1985. (iv) Certified copy of the order of mutation dated 12-9-1986 passed by the Tahasildar, Banki in Mutation Case No. 1317 of 1983. (v) Certified copy of the record-of-rights, (vi) Original rent receipts dated 27-1-1989. (vii) Original rent receipts dated 28-11-1990. In the fitness of things, these materials should be considered by the appellate Court along with the materials already on record, I, therefore, remit the appeal back to the appellate Court. The certified copies of judgments and other documents be returned to the learned counsel for petitioners to be filed before the lower appellate Court. To avoid unnecessary delay, the parties are directed to appear before the learned Sessions Judge, Cuttack on 24th of March, 1992 without farther notice when a date of hearing shall be fixed by the learned Sessions Judge for disposal of the appeal. Since the petitioners are being permitted to lead additional evidence, leading of further evidence by the opposite party-complainant cannot be circumscribed and if the opposite party so chooses, he may lead further evidence in support of his case. That shall be permitted by the appellate Court. In view of my direction for re-adjudication of the appeal, the appellate order is set aside. The revision application is accordingly disposed of.