IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 89 of 2011 Mahfooz Husain S/o Late Shri Mahmood Husain R/o Mohalla Qazi Tola P.S. Baradari, District Bareilly ................Revisionist. Versus State of Uttarakhand through District Magistrate, Champawat . …….Respondent Shri Sudhir Kumar, Advocate, present for the revisionist. Shri M.A. Khan, Brief Holder, present for the State. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. The revisionist has challenged the order dated 21.04.2011, passed by Sessions Judge,Champawat, in Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 2010, whereby the application of the appellant/applicant moved before the appellate court for adducing additional evidence, has been rejected. 2. Brief facts, of the case, are that the 2 appellant/revisionist was an accused who stood the trial in respect of offences punishable under section 279 IPC, and under section 304A IPC, in which he was convicted by the trial court. His appeal is pending before the Sessions Judge. From the impugned order it appears that the prosecution adduced its evidence where after from the side of defence, the defence evidence was adduced as such, the appellate court refused to allow the appellant to adduce further evidence at the appellate stage. 3. Powers under section 391 Cr.P.C., are to be exercised by the appellate court in exceptional circumstances. In the present case, the appellant/revisionist has pleaded that Man Singh (deceased) was in a drunken state, as observed by the Medical Officer , Tanakpur, in his report dated 16.09.2008 at 9:30 p.m.. It is discretionary for the appellate court to allow or not to allow the application moved by the appellant at the appellate stage under section 391 Cr.P.C., but in the present case, it is a relevant fact to be considered whether the deceased was in a drunken state or not at the time of the alleged 3 accident. 4. In the above circumstances, this revision is summarily dismissed with the observation that at the time of final hearing the appellate court shall consider the plea of the appellant relating to the fact whether the deceased was in a drunken state (at the time of the alleged accident) or not. (Stay application no. 459 of 2011, also stands dismissed). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) 10.05.2011 Parul