R. K. DASH, J. ( 1 ) THE short but interesting question that arises for consideration in the present petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Code') is whether the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khurda, was justified in permitting the appellants, opposite parties herein, to adduce additional evidence in the appeal preferred by them against their conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Khurda in ICC No. 185 of 1990. ( 2 ) FOR better appreciation, a few facts giving rise to the present revision may be stated thus :the opposite parties faced trial in the aforesaid complaint case lodged by the present petitioner. Upon trial they were found guilty under Sections 323 and 354, I. P. C. and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- for each offence, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month each. Against that judgment and order of conviction the opposite parties preferred Criminal Appeal No. 153/107/141 of 1995/92/91. While the appeal was pending adjudication, the/opposite parties filed a petition to call for certain documents from the Regional Office of Food Corporation of India, Vani Vihar, Bhubaneswar, to prove that at the relevant time when the occurrence was alleged to have taken place, opposite party No. 2 was present in his duty at the Regional Office and in order to prove such plea he may be permitted to examine his reliever. It was further stated that as according to the prosecution the alleged occurrence took place in front of the house of the Bisuni Behera, they may be permitted to examine him as defence witness his evidence being necessary for just decision of the case. It was further urged that there was previous hostility between the opposite parties and the petitioner and in order to prove the same they may be permitted to call for the F. I. R. and injury report in G. R. Case No. 884 of 1990. Besides, the above, they also prayed to further cross-examine P. Ws. 1 and 2 to elicit certain matters to facilitate the Court to arrive at the truth. The above prayer of the opposite parties was objected to by the petitioner. Besides, the above, they also prayed to further cross-examine P. Ws. 1 and 2 to elicit certain matters to facilitate the Court to arrive at the truth. The above prayer of the opposite parties was objected to by the petitioner. ( 3 ) LEARNED Additional District Judge upon hearing the parties and relying upon two decisions reported in (1994) 7 OCR 243, Tusar Kanti Swain v. State of Orissa and 1987 Cri LJ 1061 : (AIR 1987 SC 1331), State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal, allowed the petition and permitted the opposite parties to lead evidence as prayed for. ( 4 ) ASSAILING the impugned order, Shri L. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that plea of alibi taken by opposite party No. 2, an employee of the Regional Office of the Food Corporation of India, was an afterthought, inasmuch as while cross-examining the witnesses for the prosecution it was not suggested to them that he was not present at the scene of occurrence but was present elsewhere at the relevant time. Moreover, such a plea was also not taken he was examined by the Court under Section 313 of the Code. As regards permitting the opposite parties to examine one Bisuni Behera as a defence witness it was contended that the learned trial Court had afforded opportunity to the opposite parties to adduce defence evidence but since they declined to adduce any such evidence the Court heard arguments advanced by the parties and pronounced the judgment. In that view of the matter, contended Sri Mohapatra, learned appellate Court committed gross illegality in permitting the opposite parties to adduce further evidence which amounts to reopening the case for trial afresh. On the other hand, Shri S. Panda, learned counsel for opposite parties would contend that the impugned order being based on sound reasoning and on proper exercise of discretion, should not be interfered with by invoking inherent power of the Court. ( 5 ) SECTION 391 of the Code provides, inter alia, that in dealing with an appeal under Chapter IXIX the Appellate Court, if thinks additional evidence to be necessary, shall be recording reasons may either take such evidence itself or ask it to be taken by a Magistrate. ( 5 ) SECTION 391 of the Code provides, inter alia, that in dealing with an appeal under Chapter IXIX the Appellate Court, if thinks additional evidence to be necessary, shall be recording reasons may either take such evidence itself or ask it to be taken by a Magistrate. The object of having such a provision in the statute is the some prevention of a guilty man's escape thorugh careless or ignorant proceedings, or vindication of an innocent person wrongfully accused, where the Magistrate through the same carelessness or ignorance has omitted to record the circumstances essential to the elucidation of truth. It is because of this the appellate Court has been empowered to take additional evidence to see that justice is done between the prosecutor and the person prosecuted and if ultimately it finds that certain evidence is necessary in order to enable it to give a correct finding, it would be justified in taking action under this section. While permitting a party to produce additional evidence for arriving at a just decision it is obligatory for the appellate Court to record reasons therefor. Since wide discretion has been given in the matter, it should be exercised only after commencement of hearing of the appeal. Therefore, it is necessary that the appellate Court should first take up hearing of the appeal and in course of hearing if it comes to light that certain evidence is necessary to be taken for doing justice between the parties and to arrive at the truth, then it may exercise discretion and permit either parties to adduce additional evidence. While doing so, it should be remembered that law does not permit either prosecution or the defence to adduce additional evidence to fill up lacuna at the appellate stage. In a decision reported in AIR 1978 SC 59 : (1978 Cri LJ 177), Bir Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, it has been pointed out that power to take additional evidence should not be exercised for the purpose of filling up the gap in the prosecution case when necessary evidence was available to the prosecution at the hearing and ought to have been produced then. ( 6 ) NOW coming to the case in hand, it is to be seen as to if the learned appellate Court rightly exercised the discretion enjoined upon it while allowing the opposite parties to adduce additional evidence. ( 6 ) NOW coming to the case in hand, it is to be seen as to if the learned appellate Court rightly exercised the discretion enjoined upon it while allowing the opposite parties to adduce additional evidence. To repeat with, a plea of alibi was taken by opposite party No. 2 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge that at the relevant time he was present at his service place and to prove the same he sought the permission of the Court to examine his reliever as a witness. On going through the evidence of the complainant P. W. 1, I find no such plea was taken and no suggestion was given to her that opposite party No. 2, a Government servant, was present at his service place at the time of alleged incident. Besides, while being examined under Section 313 of the Code such a plea was also not taken. If all these aspects had been taken note of and considered, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, would not have permitted the opposite party No. 2 to adduce evidence to prove his belated plea of alibi. ( 7 ) FROM the record it appears that after the examination of the opposite parties under Section 313 was over, they were called upon to adduce defence evidence. But since they declined to adduce any such evidence, the learned Magistrate heard arguments and adjourned the case to a future date for judgment. It is not the case of the opposite parties that in order to examine Bisuni Behara as defence witness they had prayed for an adjournment but their prayer was disallowed and hearing was closed. If this would have been the situation, no serious objection could have been taken to the impugned order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge permitting the opposite parties to examine the said witness. Besides, the learned Additional Sessions Judge while permitting the opposite parties to adduce additional evidence did not assign reasons as required under law that such evidence as sought to be adduced was necessary in the interest of justice. ( 8 ) REGARD being had to the materials on record and keeping in mind the position of law, I would hold that there has been improper exercise of jurisdiction by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in permitting the opposite parties to adduce additional evidence. ( 8 ) REGARD being had to the materials on record and keeping in mind the position of law, I would hold that there has been improper exercise of jurisdiction by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in permitting the opposite parties to adduce additional evidence. In that view of the matter, the impugned order being unsustainable is set aside and the Misc. Case is allowed. Petition allowed. .