3191/2024

Case Summary The Dindigul Additional District and Sessions Judge dismissed the appellant's petition seeking to introduce additional evidence (departmental head testimony) to prove he was on duty on the cheque issuance date. The court found the petition was an afterthought lacking due diligence, as the appellant had full opportunity during trial to present this defence but made no cross-examination suggestions and provided no justification for the omission. The court held that under Section 391 CrPC, additional evidence cannot be used to patch weak points post-conviction, and the proposed evidence was immaterial to the core issue of whether a legally enforceable debt existed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.