JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal, by leave, has been filed against the order dated 2.11.2006 of acquittal of respondent of the offence u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to 'the Act' for short) passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhopal in R.T. No.980/2005 (Mrs. Sapna Jotwani Vs. Ghanshyam Singh Patel). 2. Short point, in this appeal is that the appellant has not challenged the findings of trial Court but she has advanced her arguments that documents which have been produced in I.A.No.13349/09 dated 6,10,2009 be taken on record, the order of acquittal be set aside and the matter be remanded back to trial Court for afresh trial on the basis of documents. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent has objected for taking documents on record and remanding the case for afresh trial in the light of the documents as respondent has already been acquitted of the charge levelled against him and his valuable right will be affected and he will suffer irreparable loss if fresh trial is ordered. 4. Total ten documents have been requested to be taken on record on the ground that appellant/complainant is having personal income and she has capable of given loan and she is an income tax payee. Copy of return and copy of permanent account number of income tax department and registration number of shop are requested to be taken on record. 5. In letter dated 23.10.2008 it has been said that information given by the Bank in Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act), the concerned account was opened on 20.4.2005 from which the relevant cheque was issued and other documents have been filed as Document No.1 and 2. Rajkumar Jotwani husband of appellant stood as guarantor for vehicle loan in the Bank. Rajkumar Jotwani is an employee of liquor shop. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent has objected that RTI Act came into force since 2005 and application was moved in 2008 while this case was decided in 2006 so these documents information about Bank has been procured after judgment of the case and other documents were in possession of complainant from very beginning and she can produce them in trial, now she can not be permitted to take on record. 7. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on famous case Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh and another vs. State of Gujarat and others (2004) 4 SCC 158 and Rajeswar Prasad Misra vs. State of West Bengal and another AIR 1965 SC 1887 in which it has been held that documents may be taken after judgment of acquittal but in very rare of the rarest case and famous case Zahira (Supra) about failure of near about all machinery of State together with prosecution and retrial was ordered in another State. 8. While in this case once documents were obtained after pronouncement of the judgment and other documents were very much in possession of the complainant from very beginning and they ought to have been produced at the time of trial but they were not produced so there is failure and latches on the part of the appellant and appellant can not be permitted to take advantage of her own latches and fault. 9. As far as judgment of acquittal is concerned, learned counsel for the appellant has not questioned Rajeswar Prasad Misra (Supra) by learned trial Court judgment was passed on the documents which were present in the case so order was set aside and documents are taken on record and retrial was ordered. In this case since the documents could not be produced at the time of trial so the situation is totally different. 10. Looking to the circumstances of the case, arguments advanced and the case law referred I am of the firm opinion that documents can not be taken on record and retrial can not be ordered hence this appeal being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. The order of acquittal is affirmed.