JUDGMENT C.M Totla , J. - Issue notice. Learned Public Prosecutor accepts notice on behalf of State.2. Petitioner conflicted and sentenced for the offence of Section 420 I.P.C. in course of hearing of first appeal before Additional Sessions Judge, Banswara, preferred an application under Section 391 Cr.P.C. for taking on record the order dated 28.2.2005, which rejected by learned Judge vide order dated 28.4.2008. Petitioner requests that reversing the above order, his application be allowed.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that (i) for petitioner charge is for obtaining Government employment disclosing wrong facts in application dated 14.11.1994 (ii) District Collector vide order dated 28.2.2005 exonerated petitioner in disciplinary proceedings (iii) since for the same is the charge and above mentioned order dated 28.2.2005, so taking this document on record and accepting it is necessary for just decision of the case. Argued that due to oversight or inadvertence, or even error, if document could not be exhibited in trial Court Section 391 Cr.P.C. is vide enough to allow such documents even at belated stage. Submitted that as the document is relevant for just decision of the case and application should be allowed.4. On behalf of petitioner argued that this document is a document issued by head of a Government department, so can be taken in evidence or can be directly exhibited and genuineness of this document not specifically denied by the prosecution.5. Learned Public Prosecutor apposing the above arguments submitted that as per impugned order, the document was submitted in trial Court at the stage of examination of accused and had an opportunity of proving/leading necessary evidence. Argued that Section 391 Cr.P.C. is not to be used in a way as to began proceedings afresh, particularly when document was in existence.6. Considered arguments and perused the order of learned Magistrate. According to the arguments, it appears that charge against the petitioner is for seeking Government employment as is specifically mentioned in the impugned order. This document-order of disciplinary authority in disciplinary proceedings was submitted in the trial Court on 13.11.2007 at the stage of examination of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. According to impugned order, petitioner, if so desires could have exhibited it at the above stage or by leading defence evidence. The judgment of trial Court is said to be of 11.11.2007. This document-order of disciplinary authority in disciplinary proceedings was submitted in the trial Court on 13.11.2007 at the stage of examination of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. According to impugned order, petitioner, if so desires could have exhibited it at the above stage or by leading defence evidence. The judgment of trial Court is said to be of 11.11.2007. As per provisions of Section 391 Cr.P.C. necessary additional evidence may be taken by appellate Court or can be directed to be taken by some other Court but it only of necessary and for the reasons to be recorded. In the present case when the document was submitted before the trial Court and was of year 2005 i.e. two years prior to trial Court judgment, no case for interference in the order impugned is made out.7. The misc. petition having no force is dismissed. The argument regarding direct admissibility of exhibit etc. can be raised by petitioner before the Court. Petition allowed. *******