JUDGMENT : 1. Petitioner/appellant filed this application to receive additional evidence i.e. letter No.HMWSSB/Revenue-Wing/PIO/RTI/2017-18/2216, dated 12.03.2018 issued by the General Manager (Rev) & Public Information Officer, Revenue Circle, pending Criminal Appeal No.1106 of 2006. The appellant filed the above said appeal assailing judgment dated 28.08.2006 in CC No.15 of 1999 passed by Additional Special Judge fort SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein and whereby the accused was convicted for the offences under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner herein filed the present I.A. 2. It is the contention of the petitioner that soon after the trap proceedings by ACB Officials, he was kept under suspension, he could not attend the duties and he has no access to the files pertaining to the transaction showing favour to PW.1 before and at the time of trap. It is his further contention that subsequently, even during the time of trial, he had no access to the relevant proceedings as the entire file was in the custody of ACB officials and due to the said reasons and circumstances, he could not take effective defence to prove that there was no occasion either to demand and accept the bribe as alleged from PW.1. It is his further contention that even during the trial also he was unable to locate the corresponding communication which could have helped him to take his defence. Due to the said reason and non-availability of the said proceedings, he could not take proper and effective defence except putting a suggestion to the Investigating Officer. According to him he has obtained letter dated 12.03.2018 issued by the General Manager (Rev) & Public Information Officer, Revenue Wing, under Right to Information Act (for short ‘RTI Act’). According to him, non-filing of the said document during the trial before the trial Court is neither wilful nor wanton, but due to the reasons stated above. With the said contentions, he prayed to receive the said letter dated 12.03.2018 as additional evidence in the present appeal. 3. The respondent filed a counter opposing the said petition. It is the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner/appellant did not show any sufficient reason for non-filing of the said document during the trial. With the said contentions, he prayed to receive the said letter dated 12.03.2018 as additional evidence in the present appeal. 3. The respondent filed a counter opposing the said petition. It is the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner/appellant did not show any sufficient reason for non-filing of the said document during the trial. He was having knowledge and despite giving opportunity, he did not file the said letter before the trial Court. It is the further contention of the learned Public Prosecutor that the letter dated 12.03.2018 is the information furnished to the petitioner under RTI Act and it cannot be taken as additional evidence. It is also his further contention that the information furnished under the RTI Act is based on the database of the Officer concerned and it is not admissible as per Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. With the said contentions, learned Public Prosecutor prayed for dismissal of the IA. 4. As stated above, the petitioner/appellant filed the above said I.A. to receive letter dated 12.03.2018 as additional evidence in the present appeal. According to the petitioner, he has obtained the said letter under RTI Act as per which the water supply connection was initially sanctioned in the name of Smt. D. Prameela and later changed to L. Venkat Reddy. It is the contention of the petitioner that after the trap, he was kept under suspension, he had no access to the files pertaining to the transaction and therefore, he could not get the said document/information during the pendency of the trial. Non-filing of the said document is neither wilful nor wanton and according to him it is an important and vital piece of evidence and therefore he sought to receive the said letter dated 12.03.2018 as additional evidence. 5. In support of his case, the petitioner/appellant relied upon a judgment of this Court in N. Somi Reddy v. State of A.P (2005 (2) ALD (Crl.) 406 A.P.), wherein it was held that primary and substantive purposes of the judicial branch as an organ of the State is to effectuate the values by which the society professes to regulate the conduct of its citizens as expressed in legislation or legislative instruments. The Criminal law of the land is one such expression of the communities' social values. The Criminal law of the land is one such expression of the communities' social values. Criminal procedures are explication of those procedures identified as fair procedures for administration of criminal law of the land. Section 391 of Cr.P.C. consecrates discretion in the appellate Court to take further evidence or direct such evidence to be taken, where the admission of such further evidence on to the appellate record is considered essential for arriving at the truth of the matter. 6. The petitioner/appellant further relied upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rambhabu v. Sate of Andhra Pradesh (2001 (1) ALD (Crl.) 7800 (SC) and North Easter Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das (Dead) by LRs. (2008) 8 Supreme Court Cases 511). He has also relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Corporation of Madras v. M. Parthasarathy (2018) 9 Supreme Court Cases 445). But, the said judgment is with regard to receipt of additional evidence by the appellate Court as per the procedure laid down under CPC. 7. Per contra, opposing the said petition, learned Public Prosecutor relied upon the very same decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rambhau v. State of Maharashtra (2001) 4 SCC 759 = (2001) 1 ALD (Crl.)7800 SC)wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that a word of caution, however, ought to be introduced for guidance, to wit: that this additional evidence cannot and ought not to be received in such a way so as to cause any prejudice to the accused. It is not a disguise for a retrial or to change the nature of the case against the accused. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that the concept of justice which ought to prevail and in the event, the same dictates exercise of power as conferred by the Code, there ought not to be any hesitation in that regard. And exercise of power under Section 391, since the same is dependent upon the fact-situation of the matter and having due regard to the concept of fair play and justice, well being of the society. 8. The learned Public Prosecutor relied upon another decision reported in Ashok Tshering Bhutia v. State of Sikkim (2011) AIR (SC) 1363), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court dealing with receipt of additional evidence categorically held that additional evidence at appellate stage is permissible, in case of a failure of justice. 8. The learned Public Prosecutor relied upon another decision reported in Ashok Tshering Bhutia v. State of Sikkim (2011) AIR (SC) 1363), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court dealing with receipt of additional evidence categorically held 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 Code of Criminal Procedure 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. 9. Learned Public Prosecutor also relied upon another decision reported in Chennakesha Bandage v. State of A.P. (2010) 1 ALT(Crl) 219) wherein this Court held that under Section 391 Cr.P.C., empowers the Appellate court to take additional evidence. However, it is also settled law that additional evidence cannot be taken to fill up the lacunas in prosecution case. Where the Court comes to a conclusion that the additional evidence is necessary and if additional evidence is not taken there would be failure of justice then the Appellate Court is empowered to take additional evidence. However, it is also settled law that the power has to be exercised sparingly and only in suitable cases. 10. In the said decision this Court further held that even in case of taking additional evidence, the Court must see whether the prosecution or the accused had no opportunity to produce such additional evidence before the trial Court. When the prosecution or the accused having in possession of the additional evidence, fails to produce such additional evidence then they cannot be permitted to fill up the gaps in their case. When the prosecution or the accused having in possession of the additional evidence, fails to produce such additional evidence then they cannot be permitted to fill up the gaps in their case. Only in exceptional cases where the prosecution or the accused for compelling reasons could not produce the evidence before the Trial Court or where they had no knowledge about the existence of such additional evidence and when they had come to know about additional evidence after the closure of the prosecution evidence then only in such exceptional circumstances the Court may permit the prosecution or the accused to adduce additional evidence. 11. Learned Public Prosecutor further relied upon the principle held by Kerala High Court in a judgment reported in Govindan v. Food Inspector (1982) CriLJ 784), wherein the Kerala High Court categorically held with regard to procedure to be followed under Section 391 of Cr.P.C., and dealing with criminal appeals. Section 391 of Cr.P.C. enables the appellate Court that takes additional evidence to certify such evidence to the appellate Court. After this certification, it is the appellate Court that has to proceed to dispose of the appeal. Consideration of additional evidence is permissible only by the appellate Court. The function of the Court that records evidence is only to certify such evidence as mentioned above. The appellate Court cannot delegate the functions to the Magistrate Court. Section 391 of Cr.P.C. obliges the appellate Court to consider the evidence so taken irrespective of the Court which took such additional evidence. Therefore, in exercise of the power under Section 391 of Cr.P.C, the appellate Court cannot direct the trial Court to dispose of the case after taking fresh evidence, even assuming it is dissatisfied with the evidence on record and finds that in the interest of justice fresh evidence must be allowed to be adduced. Such a procedure would not be warranted by Section 386 of Cr.P.C. in the case of an appeal against conviction. 12. Learned Public Prosecutor relied upon another judgment reported in Satyapalan v. State of Kerala (2002) 1 ALT(Crl) 335) of Kerala High Court, wherein it is also categorically held that additional evidence may be recorded by the appellate court, if it is so inclined, or it can be collected through the trial court. 12. Learned Public Prosecutor relied upon another judgment reported in Satyapalan v. State of Kerala (2002) 1 ALT(Crl) 335) of Kerala High Court, wherein it is also categorically held that additional evidence may be recorded by the appellate court, if it is so inclined, or it can be collected through the trial court. In either case the purpose is not to fill up the lacuna in the available evidence; but to ensure that there would be no failure of justice for want of proper evidence. If the process of admitting further evidence is comparatively simple, the appellate court may collect the evidence itself. On the other hand, if it is likely to be long and complicated, that is to say, requiring the examination and cross-examination of several witnesses on summons and marking of exhibits, it is often desirable to get it through the trial court. In either case the collection of evidence is by the appellate court and during the pendency of the appeal and not after its disposal. 13. In the above said backdrop of the facts and legal position, the point for consideration by this Court is whether the petitioner/appellant is entitled to file additional evidence vide letter dated 12.03.2018 issued by the General Manager (Rev) & Public Information Officer, in the appeal? 14. As discussed supra, the petitioner/appellant filed the above said appeal assailing the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court. According to the petitioner, there was no official favour that was pending before him and he was implicated in a false case. In support of his case, he wants to file letter dated 12.03.2018 obtained by him under RTI Act to establish that the water connection was initially sanctioned in the name of Smt. D. Prameela and later changed to L.Venkat Reddy. According to him it is a vital information/document in support of his case. He has not filed the said document during the pendency of the trial due to non-availability of the same. 15. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the petitioner/appellant was having knowledge of the said information, which he has now obtained under RTI Act. According to him there was a suggestion to PW-7 during cross-examination with regard to said water supply connection to the house of Smt. D.Pramila on 10.02.1998 bearing Consumer No.024349062. 15. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the petitioner/appellant was having knowledge of the said information, which he has now obtained under RTI Act. According to him there was a suggestion to PW-7 during cross-examination with regard to said water supply connection to the house of Smt. D.Pramila on 10.02.1998 bearing Consumer No.024349062. According to learned Public Prosecutor, the cross-examination of PW-7 was on 04.04.2003 whereas the petitioner/appellant sought to file the present letter dated 12.03.2018 obtained by him under RTI Act. The learned Public Prosecutor further contended that though there is knowledge to the petitioner/appellant, he has not filed the said document during trial and now he is trying to fill up the lacunae, which is not permissible under law. With the said contention, he has prayed to dismiss the present I.A. 16. The record reveals that there was a suggestion to PW-7 during cross examination about the water supply connection to the house of Smt. D. Prameela on 10.02.1998 bearing Consumer No. 024349062. Of course, PW-7 denied the said suggestion. By referring the said suggestion, learned Public Prosecutor would contend that by the date of the said cross-examination, the petitioner/appellant was having knowledge and therefore, the additional evidence now sought to file by the petitioner/appellant cannot be accepted. 17. Admittedly, after the trap, the petitioner/appellant was placed under suspension. Therefore, he was not having access to the files and information. Though there was a suggestion to PW-7 on the said aspect, but he denied the same. He was not in a position to locate the corresponding communication which could have helped him to take the said defence. Therefore, the petitioner/appellant obtained the said information under RTI Act. 18. According to petitioner/appellant, the said document will change the whole complex of the case and further goes to the root of the case. It may even found that he is not guilty of the provisions of the Act. The said document being in the nature of a public document and being original in nature under RTI Act has to be considered. The charge against the petitioner/appellant is that, on 10.02.1998, he has demanded Rs.1,000/- as illegal gratification from PW.1 to issue water supply connection. It is the specific case of the prosecution that the said official favour i.e., issuance of water supply connection is pending with the Accused Officer as on 10.02.1998. The charge against the petitioner/appellant is that, on 10.02.1998, he has demanded Rs.1,000/- as illegal gratification from PW.1 to issue water supply connection. It is the specific case of the prosecution that the said official favour i.e., issuance of water supply connection is pending with the Accused Officer as on 10.02.1998. The trial Court recorded conviction by holding that the said official favour was pending with the Accused Officer and to do the same, he has demanded an amount of Rs1,000/- from P.W.1. Now, therefore, Accused Officer would like to file the letter dated 12.03.2018 to establish that by 10.02.1998, the aforesaid official favour was not pending with him. 19. The letter dated 12.03.2018 says that the water connection was initially sanctioned in the name of Smt. D. Prameela and later changed to L. Venkat Reddy. According to the petitioner/appellant, the said additional evidence is vital and he would like to file the same as additional evidence. By receiving the said additional evidence, there would not be any prejudice to the prosecution. On the other hand, non-receipt of the said additional evidence is nothing but denial of fair and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner/appellant. It amounts to denial of fair play, justice and well being of the society. Moreover, it is relevant to mention that the petitioner/appellant filed the present appeal assailing the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court. 20. As stated above, it is settled principle of law that this Court being appellate Court is having power to receive the additional evidence under Section 391 of Cr.P.C. and the said power has to be exercised sparingly with diligence depending upon the fact situation of each and every case having due regard to the concept of fair play and justice and well being of the society. Only in exceptional cases where the prosecution or the accused for compelling reasons could not produce the evidence before the trial Court, then only the additional evidence is permissible to be filed and the appellate Court can permit the parties to receive the additional evidence. 21. So, under the said circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that by receiving additional evidence there would not be any prejudice to the prosecution and on the other hand non-receipt of the additional evidence there would be denial of opportunity, fair play, equity, justice to the Accused Officer. 21. So, under the said circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that by receiving additional evidence there would not be any prejudice to the prosecution and on the other hand non-receipt of the additional evidence there would be denial of opportunity, fair play, equity, justice to the Accused Officer. According to this Court, it is an exceptional case to receive the additional evidence in the appeal in the interests of justice. Under the said circumstances, the present I.A. is allowed. 22. Since the application for receiving the additional evidence is allowed, now the next question that arises for consideration is whether this Court being the appellate Court, will send the file to the trial Court for the purpose of recording and certifying the said additional evidence or this Court itself will receive the evidence by itself. 23. As discussed above, the petitioner/appellant filed only one document i.e., letter dated 12.03.2018 as additional evidence. There may not be more than one witness to mark the said document or there is no likelihood of taking long time and there are no complicated issues requiring examination and cross-examination of several witnesses on summons and marking of exhibits. Therefore, there is no need of sending the file to the trial Court and this Court itself will receive the additional evidence and consider the same by following the due procedure laid down under law. Therefore, the appeal is posted for evidence of petitioner/appellant.