JUDGMENT 1. (Oral) - This revision is directed against the order dated 6.8.01, passed by learned Special Judge (Communal Riots) Jaipur, in Criminal Appeal No. 9/2001, whereby the application moved on behalf of the accused petitioner under Section 391 Cr.RC. was dismissed. 2. The facts in brief are that the complainant respondent No. 2 Smt. Manju Lata lodged a report at Mahila Police Station, Jaipur, against her husband Manish Kumar and three other accused persons on 16.6.1991, with the averments of dowry demands and beating. After investigation, charge sheet came to be filed under Sections 498 A, 323 and 354 IPC against the four accused persons. The prosecution examined nine witnesses. Thereafter the accused petitioners were examined as provided under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied the prosecution evidence. The accused petitioners Manish Kumar and Ram Chandra examined themselves as defence witnesses and thereafter the learned A.C.J.M. No. 4, Jaipur City, Jaipur vide judgment dated 22/3/2000, convicted and sentenced all the accused petitioners under Section 498 A IPC to undergo one year simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to further undergo one months' simple imprisonment, one month simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to undergo seven days simple imprisonment under Section 323 IPC. The accused petitioner Shri Suman was also convicted and sentenced with one year simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment under Section 354 IPC. Against this judgment, Criminal Appeal No. 9/2001 filed by the accused petitioners is pending in the Court of Special Judge (Communal Riots), Jaipur. 3. An application under Section 391 Cr.P.C. was moved on behalf of the accused petitioners on 8.9.2000 with the averments that the complainant wrote a letter which was produced in the Family Court No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur on 22.2.1991, and in that letter the complainant admitted her relations with one Govind. The complainant was cross-examined on this point but that letter could not be produced before the trial court on account of mistake. The complainant filed a complaint also on 27.5.1993, in the Court which was sent to concerned Police Station for investigation and F.R. was submitted after investigation. Thus the complainant is in habit of filing false complaints, therefore, these two documents should be taken on record. The complainant filed a complaint also on 27.5.1993, in the Court which was sent to concerned Police Station for investigation and F.R. was submitted after investigation. Thus the complainant is in habit of filing false complaints, therefore, these two documents should be taken on record. Learned Appellate Judge, vide order dated 9.8.2001, dismissed this application on the ground that both the documents were in possession of the accused petitioners and the complainant was cross-examined in detail and thus both the documents could have been produced during the trial and therefore, at this stage the accused petitioners can not be allowed to produce these documents. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. According to Section 391 Cr.P.C. the Appellate Court, if thinks additional evidence to be necessary, shall record its reason and may either take such evidence itself, or direct it to be taken by the Magistrate. Learned counsel for the accused petitioners relied upon Rajendra Prasad v. The Narcotic Cell Through Its Officer In Charge, Delhi, reported in 1999 Cr.L.R. (SC) 434 , wherein it was held that errors committed by prosecution can be corrected and the Court is empowered to recall any witness at any stage under Section 311 Cr.RC. Thus this is a judgment in accordance with the provisions of Section 311 Cr.RC. and not under Section 391 Cr.RC. In Rajeswar Prasad Misra v. The State of West Bengal and another ( AIR 1965 SC 1887 ) , in appeal against acquittal, Hon. Apex Court field that the Appellate court has power to take additional evidence and there is no restriction. In State of Gujrat v. Mohan Lai Jitamalji Portwal and another ( AIR 1987 SC 1321 ) , it was held that request for adducing additional evidence under Section 391 Cr.PC. should not be rejected only on the ground of delay. In Sharad Dhakar v. State reported in RCC, Feb. 1997, 79 , the Division Bench of this Court held that the object of the Section 391 Cr.PC. is to ensure the justice between the parties and additional evidence may be allowed if necessary for fair and final adjudication. In Akhtar Ali v. State of Rajasthan (WLN (UC) 1976, 574 , this Court held that in appeal additional evidence can be allowed to prove Indian Nationality where the burden to prove was upon the accused. 5. is to ensure the justice between the parties and additional evidence may be allowed if necessary for fair and final adjudication. In Akhtar Ali v. State of Rajasthan (WLN (UC) 1976, 574 , this Court held that in appeal additional evidence can be allowed to prove Indian Nationality where the burden to prove was upon the accused. 5. I have considered the rival submission in the light of the judgments cited here-in-above. This incident is way back of the year 1991 and after long trial the trial court passed the judgment in March 2000 and the complainant was cross-examined regarding these documents. The complainant was examined in April 1995. As stated here-in-above, two accused petitioners themselves appeared as defence witnesses and their statements were recorded in October 1999. Thus the decision of the learned Appellate Court appears to be justified. The accused petitioners had every opportunity to produce these documents and it is a clear case that the intention of the accused petitioners is only to delay the proceedings. Further the additional evidence does not appear to be necessary. I find no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order. Hence this revision petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. Original records be sent back within seven days.Revision petition dismissed. *******