Judgment: 1. Heard learned counsel for respective parties. 2. petitioner has questioned the order dated 24.12.2002 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon in Criminal Appeal No.40/1998 whereby passing an order below Exh.19 in pending Criminal Appeal No.40/1998, learned Additional Sessions Judge permitted the appellant in the case to adduce additional evidence exercising his discretion under section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which empowers the Appellate Court to take further evidence. It appears that learned Additional Sessions Judge had passed a detailed and reasoned order and considering the allegations levelled against the respondent-complainant on the ground that respondent-complainant is a money lender. The appellant had further alleged that he was in need of money and had borrowed some amount from the respondent which he had in fact repaid with interest. According to the accused, the complainant used to take cheques as security for the transaction and also got executed a sale deed from the accused, which accused offered to tender in evidence at the appellate stage. Naturally, respondent no.2-original complainant raised objection on the ground that, accused cannot be allowed to fill up the lacuna in the evidence led before the trial court. Further it was objected that additional evidence, if permitted would result into protraction of the trial. Lastly, the application before the appellate court was objected on the ground that accused had not availed of the opportunity to lead evidence in defence despite the fact that his statement under section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code was recorded by the trial court. 3. Learned advocate for the petitioner sought to place his reliance upon the ruling in the case of Yogendra Bhagatram Sachdev Vs. State of Maharashtra and another reported in 2003 Bom.C.R. (Cri) 810 decided by Single Judge of this Court. Learned advocate for the petitioner pointed out paragraph no.22 of the judgment which reads thus:- "Power under section 391 of Criminal Procedure Code must be exercised to meet the ends of justice so that injustice is not done to the accused on account of some irregularity in the conduct of trial or where the trial Court through ignorance has omitted to record the evidence of circumstances essential to elucidate the truth, with a caveat, that exercise of such power should not be with a view to fill up the lacunae in the evidence." 4. The Preposition which is laid down in paragraph no. The Preposition which is laid down in paragraph no. 22 is indubitable and in fact help the case of the respondent/accused that he cannot be precluded from leading essential evidence at the appellate stage. Regarding powers of the Appellate court, discretion is available under section 391 of the Criminal Procedure Code while one can find under section 311 of Criminal Procedure Code that it is duty of any Criminal Court to ensure just decision of the case and for that purpose if any evidence appears essential for the purpose of just decision of the case, it can be allowed. However, the contention that accused cannot be allowed to fill up the lacuna in the case is a precaution to be taken while receiving evidence by learned Additional Sessions Judge and while deciding the appeal. 5. It may also be noted that the learned advocate for respondent placed reliance upon the ruling to point out that appellate court has power to take additional evidence. Latest case which is relied upon is in the case of Ashok Tshering Bhutia Vs. State of Sikkim reported in 2011 (3) Mh.L.J.150 (Supreme Court). In paragraph No.15 the Apex Court observed that:- "Additional evidence at appellate stage is permissible, in case of a failure of justice. However, such power must be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional suitable cases where the Court is satisfied that directing additional evidence would serve the interests of justice. It would depend upon the facts and circumstances of an individual case as to whether such permission should be granted having due regard to the concepts of fair play, justice and the well-being of society. Such an application for taking additional evidence must be decided objectively, just to cure the irregularity. The primary object of the provisions of section 391 of Criminal Procedure Code is the prevention of a guilty man’s escape through some careless or ignorant action on part of the prosecution before the Court or for vindication of an innocent person wrongfully accused, where the Court omitted to record the circumstances essential to elucidation of truth. Generally, it should be invoked when formal proof for the prosecution is necessary.” 6. Learned Appellate judge can appropriately consider the aforesaid ruling while additional evidence may be allowed to be led pursuant to the impugned order. 7. Generally, it should be invoked when formal proof for the prosecution is necessary.” 6. Learned Appellate judge can appropriately consider the aforesaid ruling while additional evidence may be allowed to be led pursuant to the impugned order. 7. Considering the importance of just decision in the case, as also essential evidence, no fault can be found with the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge permitting the accused to lead additional evidence. Evidence led, if any, and rebutted on behalf of the complainant would help the Appellate Court to arrive at just decision in the case as contemplated under section 311 read with section 391 of Criminal Procedure Code. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, no interference is called for in the impugned order. Petition is dismissed. Parties to appear before the Appellate Court on 15.7.2013at about 11.00 a.m. and learned Additional Sessions Judge, is requested to dispose of the appeal as early as possible. Rule discharged.