JUDGMENT : Sabina, J. Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Criminal Procedure Code 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.'), challenging the order dated 14.9.2016, whereby the application moved by the petitioner under Section 391 Cr.P.C. was dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the documents now sought to be produced by the petitioner by way of additional evidence in appeal were very necessary for the just decision of the case. 3. Petitioner had faced trial in a complaint filed by the respondent No.1 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Trial court vide judgment/order dated 1.5.2015 ordered the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Section 138 of the Act. Aggrieved against his conviction and sentence as ordered by the trial court, petitioner preferred an appeal. 4. During the pendency of the appeal, petitioner moved an application under Section 391 Cr.P.C. for permission to lead additional evidence. By way of additional evidence petitioner wants to produce on record a complaint filed by him in Police Station Harmada on 2.6.2010, Stamp Paper dated 2.3.2010 executed by the son of the petitioner with regard to cheque in question and residential proof of the petitioner. The documents sought to be produced by the petitioner were in his knowledge but petitioner failed to prove the documents now sought to be produced on the record while leading his defence evidence during trial. 5. Learned trial court while dismissing the application of the petitioner held that so far as document dated 2.6.2010 is concerned, it was merely a photocopy and there was no endorsement of the Police Station on the said document. So far as agreement dated 2.3.2010 is concerned, the learned trial court held that it was signed by Raju Lal but it was not evident as to when the Stamp Paper had been purchased and by whom. Moreover the document was merely a photocopy. So far as the residential proof of the petitioner is concerned, the learned trial court held that in this regard petitioner had not raised any objection during trial. 6. Thus, the reasons given by the trial court while dismissing the application moved by the petitioner under Section 391 Cr.P.C. are sound reasons and call for no interference. Dismissed.