to when an additional evidence at the appellate stage is permissible by holding as under:“28. Additional evidence at the 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 wellbeing of society. Such an application for taking additional evidence must be decided objectively, just to cure the irregularity.” In the aforesaid judgment, Their Lordships also took note of the earlier judgments of the Supreme Court in the matters of State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal 8 and Rambhau (supra) and concluded as under:“32. In view of the above, the law on the point can be summerised to the effect that additional evidence can be taken at the appellate stage in exceptional circumstances, to remove an irregularity, where the circumstances so warrant in public interest. Generally, such power is exercised to have formal proof of the documents, etc. just to meet the ends of justice. However, the provisions of Section 391 CrPC cannot be pressed into service in order to fill up lacunae in the prosecution case.” 09. We have examined the application filed by the appellants in the light of proposition of law laid-down by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the above-stated judgments. We are of the view that
