ORDER 1. This criminal revision filed under sections 397 and 401 CrPC is directed against the order dated 14.9.2012 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Guna in Criminal Appeal No.430/2010. The Court below by impugned order rejected an application preferred by the petitioner under section 391 CrPC r/w sections 60 and 65A, B of Evidence Act. 2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of this matter are that the respondent No.1 filed a complaint against the petitioner under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (N.I. Act). The trial Court passed the judgment dated 18.11.2010, whereby convicted the petitioner for offence under section 138 of N.I. Act with three months simple imprisonment with further direction to pay Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation. The petitioner preferred an appeal which was registered as Criminal Appeal No.430/2010. In the said appeal, the petitioner filed an application under section 391 CrPC r/w sections 60 and 65A, B of Evidence Act. The Court below rejected this application by order dated 14.9.2012. 3. Criticizing this order, it is contended by Shri Rishikesh Bohare that the application under section 391 should have been considered and decided after hearing the criminal appeal on merits and should not have disposed of in isolation without hearing the appeal on merits. Reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court, reported in 2006(II) MPWN 47 = 2006(1) MPLJ 436 (Dharmendra v. State of M.P.) 4. No other point is pressed by him. 5. Shri R. K. Mishra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Shri Kamal Jain, Government Advocate supported the order. They submit that the Court below has not committed any error in deciding the interiocutory application at interlocutory stage. Section 391 CrPC nowhere prescribes that such application must be decided at the time of final hearing of the matter. 6. I have bestowed my anxious consideration on rival contentions of the parties and perused the record. 7. The apex Court in (2001)4 SCC 759 (Rambhau and another v. State of Maharashta), opined that section 391 CrPC is an exception to general rule that an appeal must be decided on the evidence which was before the trial Court and the powers being an exception shall always have to be exercised with caution and circumspection so as to meet the ends of justice. It is further held that section 391 CrPC is akin to Order 41 rule 27 of CPC. 8. It is further held that section 391 CrPC is akin to Order 41 rule 27 of CPC. 8. The apex Court in (2001)10 SCC 619 (State of Rajasthan v. T. N. Sahani) and also in case of Khemchand v. Government of M.P. and others [ 1972 MPLJ 524 ], opined that the application to lead additional evidence needs to be decided after hearing the appeal on merits. This Court in Dharmendra (supra), has followed the said judgment and opined as under :- “Therefore, the wording of section 391, Criminal Procedure Code suggests that the application moved under this section should not be considered in isolation but should be considered after heraing the parties on merits. If after hearing parties on merits Court comes to the conclusion that the additional evidence is unnecessary then while deciding the appeal application moved under section 391 Code of Criminal Procedure can be dismissed. (Emphasis Supplied) 9. The judgment of this Court is based on a Supreme Court judgment in T.N. Sahani (supra), and section 391 CrPC is held to be akin to Order 41 rule 27 of CPC. I am in respectful agreement to the view taken by this Court in Dharmendra (supra). Thus, the singular point raised by the petitioner needs to be decided in his favour. The Court below has erred in deciding the application dated 27.7.2012 at interlocutory stage. 10. Resultantly, the impugned order dated 14.9.2012 is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Court below with the direction to proceed in accordance with law by taking into account the judgment of this Court in Dharmendra (supra). 11. Petition is allowed. No costs.