JUDGMENT 1. - Being aggrieved by the order dated 17.6.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2 Shri Ganganagar, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the petitioner's application filed under Section 391 Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioner has approached this Court. 2. The brief facts of the case are that Mahesh Kumar, the respondent No. 2, had filed a criminal complaint under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act wherein he had stated that the petitioner had given a cheque, cheque No. 279732 drawn on Punjab National Bank Branch, Sadulsahar. However, when he submitted the cheque for encashment in Ganganagar Central Sahakari Bank, Sadulsahar, he was informed that the account of the petitioner was closed. Therefore, the said cheque could not be honoured. Subsequently, he filed a complaint before the learned trial Judge. The learned Trial Court had convicted and sentenced the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act. Hence, the petitioner had filed an appeal before the learned Judge. During the course of the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner moved an application under Section 391 Criminal Procedure Code requesting the documents of Punjab Natioinal Bank should be summoned and the concerned person should also be summoned. However, vide order dated 17.6.2011 the said application has been dismissed. Thus, this petition before this Court. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in order to substantiate the defence, in the interest of justice, it is imperative that the documents be summoned by the appellate Court. However, without assigned any cogent reason the appellate Court has dismissed the application. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. Section 391 Criminal Procedure Code, reads as under : Appellate Court may take further evidence or direct it to be taken. - (1) In dealing with any appeal under this Chapter, the Appellate Court, if it thinks additional evidence to the necessary, shall record its reasons and may either take such evidence itself, or direct it to be taken by a Magistrate, or when the Appellate Court is a High Court, by a Court of Session or a Magistrate. (2) When the additional evidence is taken by the Court of Session or the Magistrate, it or he shall certify such evidence to the Appellate Court, and such Court shall thereupon proceed to dispose of the appeals. (2) When the additional evidence is taken by the Court of Session or the Magistrate, it or he shall certify such evidence to the Appellate Court, and such Court shall thereupon proceed to dispose of the appeals. (3) The accused or his Pleader shall have the right to be present when the additional evidence is taken. (4) The taking of evidence under this section shall be subject to the provisions of Chapter XXIII, as if it were an inquiry. 5. The case of Ashok Tsherina Bhutia v. State of Sikkim, AIR 2011 Supreme Court 1363 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the power under Section 391 Criminal Procedure Code, is a vast one. Therefore, it should be utilised as sparingly as possible. It cannot be utilised in order to permit an offender to plug in the loopholes in his defence. Obviously, the petitioner could have sought the production of the documents from the Punjab National Bank during the course of trial; this opportunity was available to him when he entered his defence. However, he failed to exercise his right at the relevant time. Hence, the power under Section 391 Criminal Procedure Code cannot be invoked in order for him for fill up the lacune left in his defence. 6. Thus, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in judgment dated 17.6.2011. Hence, the revision petition is devoid o any merit; it is, hereby dismissed.Revision Petition Dismissed. *******