Judgment Uma Nath Singh, J. 1. This criminal revision arises out of an order dated 2.3.2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari, in Criminal Appeal No. 14 RT dated 13.12.2002/30.5.2001, rejecting an application moved on behalf of the petitioner-revisionist under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for leading additional evidence at appellate stage. The petitioner was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and sentenced to six months RI with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. The principal submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are : (i) that the application was moved under Section 311 Cr.P.C. by an inadvertent mistake and in fact the petitioner should have made an application under Section 391 Cr.P.C. for production of additional evidence; (ii) that in terms of a judgment of Honble the Apex Court reported as Rajeshwar Parsad Misra v. The State of W.B. and another, AIR 1965 SC 1887 and of Rajasthan High Court reported as Sharad Dhakar v. State, 1998(2) RCR(Criminal) 91, the learned Appellate Court should have taken into account the requirement of the ends of justice before rejecting the prayer. Learned counsel also submitted that if by non-production of said additional evidence the petitioner was to suffer a prejudice, the Court should have directed for production of the said additional evidence, more particularly in terms of the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court (supra). 2. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the document did not relate to the period of supply of the commodity in respect whereof the cheque in question has been issued. Learned counsel referred to para 11 of the impugned order which says that the demand was dated 15.10.1992 whereas the document sought to be produced is dated 31.3.1993. The Builties produced during trial and exhibited as D-1 to D-6 and Builties Nos. 5393 & 5394 produced by the accused, though not exhibited, fully cover the supply of 920 bags of DAP fertilizer. Further, the application in question was moved under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. and that too, at the appellate stage, therefore, it would not be open for the petitioner to contest the application as the one under Section 391 Cr.P.C. 3. Further, the application in question was moved under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. and that too, at the appellate stage, therefore, it would not be open for the petitioner to contest the application as the one under Section 391 Cr.P.C. 3. On due consideration of rival submissions and from perusal of the records, it appears that the ratio of judgment of the Honble Apex Court in the case of Rajeshwar Parshad Misra (supra) in para 15 lays down the principle that the provisions of Section 391 Cr.P.C. can be exercised only where there is a failure of justice. Moreover, such an exercise would be subject to the conditions namely : (i) it should be exercised sparingly and only in suitable cases and more particularly where it is justified; (ii) the exercise should not be done in such a way as to cause prejudice to the accused, which would appear as a disguise for a re-trial to change the nature of the case against him; (iii) the order may not ordinarily be made if the prosecution or any party had a fair opportunity and has not availed of it unless the requirements of justice dictate otherwise. 4. So far as Rajasthan High Court judgment in the case of Sharad Dhankar is concerned, it mentions that additional evidence can be allowed only where it is necessary but at the same time, the judgment also says that the power under Section 391 should be exercised with circumspection and for meeting the ends of justice. In view of the position being clear in the judgment of the Honble Apex Court in the case of Rajeshwar Parsad (supra) the ratio of the Rajasthan High Courts judgment may not be acceded to. Moreover, in the case on hand, the petitioner has failed to indicate in clear terms the source of getting photo copies of the documents which he wanted to be produced in additional evidence so that the Court would be in position to assess as to whether it was already within his knowledge or it has come to his notice only at appellate stage. Needless to say that if the provisions of Section 391 of the Cr.P.C. are to be treated at par with the provisions of Section 311 of the Code, then the existence of one of the provisions on the statute would be unnecessary. Needless to say that if the provisions of Section 391 of the Cr.P.C. are to be treated at par with the provisions of Section 311 of the Code, then the existence of one of the provisions on the statute would be unnecessary. However, from a bare reading of the provisions, it is clear that the conditions whereunder they are to be invoked and exercised, cover different situations and are to operate in different premises. Besides, the party seeking relief should approach the Court with clean past and in a bona fide manner. 5. I do not find any merit in the application and hence it is hereby rejected.