JUDGMENT 1. - The instant miscellaneous petition has been preferred by the petitioners assailing the order dated 16.4.2013 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Udaipur in Cr. Appeal No. 31/2005 whereby the petitioner's application under Section 391 Cr.P.C. was rejected. 2. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioners after being tried were convicted for the offence under Sections 27-B, 27-D and 28-A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 for having manufactured absorbent cotton wool during the period their licence was invalid. The judgment of conviction was passed on 28.4.2005. The plea of the accused in the trial Court was that no production was undertaken during the period for which the prosecution was launched. The trial Court observed that the accused should have presented the relevant documents i.e. the stock register etc. The accused were put on notice by the Drug Inspector during the pre-complaint enquiries to produce the relevant record but despite being provided ample opportunity, they did not bring the documents on record and thus they were held guilty of the offence. 3. The accused filed Appeal No. 31/2005 challenging their conviction. On 15.6.2006, an application under Section 391 Cr.P.C. was moved by the accused claiming that the documents, non-presentation whereof was taken adverse to them became available to the accused later on and as such they should be permitted to bring such documents on record by leading additional evidence. The application thus filed by the accused under Section 391 Cr.P.C. was rejected by the appellate Court vide order dated 16.4.2013. Hence, this petition. 4. Learned counsel submits that there was a lock out in the company and thus there was no possibility of the production of cotton being done during the disputed period. Learned counsel submits that the original documents in question could not became available to the accused during the trial. The photo copies of ten documents were available which were brought on record but the trial Court did not rely upon them. Learned counsel thus submits that it is a fit case wherein powers under Section 391 Cr.P.C. should have been exercised to permit the petitioner to prove the relevant document which were essential for their defence. Learned counsel placed on record, the application filed by the accused appellant under Section 391 Cr.P.C. wherein all these facts have been narrated. Learned counsel thus submits that it is a fit case wherein powers under Section 391 Cr.P.C. should have been exercised to permit the petitioner to prove the relevant document which were essential for their defence. Learned counsel placed on record, the application filed by the accused appellant under Section 391 Cr.P.C. wherein all these facts have been narrated. Learned counsel thus prays that the miscellaneous petition deserves to be accepted and the appellate Court be directed to permit the accused to lead additional evidence under Section 391 Cr.P.C. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor has filed reply to the application and submits that the accused were given ample opportunity at the trial to produce the requisite defence evidence but they failed to do so and as such the" application under Section 391 Cr.P.C. was rightly rejected by the learned appellate Court. He thus prays that the miscellaneous petition should be dismissed. 6. Heard and considered the arguments advanced at the bar. Perused the order impugned and the record. From a perusal of the order impugned, it is evidence that the trial Court recorded judgment of conviction as the accused could not discharge the burden of proof. Learned trial Judge observed that the accused did not produce the relevant documents to show that there was lock out in the factory. The specific plea of the accused is that the documents for bringing the relevant facts for establishing their innocence were not available to them at the trial. The right to defend oneself is an important right and if due to unavailability of the documents for reasons beyond the control, the accused could not bring the defence documents on record, then one opportunity should have been provided to them by the learned appellate Court. The accused is not trying to create a new defence by way of the application. It was all along the defence of the accused that the factory was closed at the relevant time, and therefore, there was no possibility of manufacture of Absorbent Cotton Wool at the relevant time. 7. Thus, in the opinion of this Court an opportunity should have been given to the appellants to lead evidence for bringing the relevant original documents on record. 7. Thus, in the opinion of this Court an opportunity should have been given to the appellants to lead evidence for bringing the relevant original documents on record. However, this Court feels that as substantial time has been taken in their endeavour to bring the documents on record, the accused have to be burdened with appropriate cost before such opportunity can be given to them. It is also made clear that the grant of this opportunity would not entitle the accused to reopen the whole proceedings once again. 8. Accordingly, the miscellaneous petition is allowed in the terms set out below: 9. The accused shall be provided opportunity by the learned appellate Court to lead defence evidence in support of their application under Section 391 Cr.P.C. Whatever documents the accused is desirous to prove and are considered to be relevant shall be permitted to be taken on record upon being proved by any appropriate defence witness. The process shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of this order. The opportunity to lead additional evidence under Section 391 Cr.P.C. is subject to the deposit to Rs. 10,000/- as cost.The miscellaneous petition is disposed of in the terms stated above. The stay application is disposed of.Petition allowed. *******