ORDER : P.K. Lohra, J. The instant misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. at the behest of accused-petitioner is directed against order dated 4th of March 2017, passed by Sessions Judge, Pali (for short, 'learned appellate Court') in Criminal Appeal No.38/2017. 2. By the order impugned, learned appellate Court has declined the prayer of petitioner for taking additional evidence of Bank Manager along with documents in an appeal wherein she has challenged her conviction for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'Act') recorded by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Marwar Junction, Pali (for short, 'learned trial Court'). 3. Succinctly stated, facts of the case are that complainant Bheru Dan submitted a complaint under Section 138 of the Act against petitioner before learned trial Court inter-alia on the ground that Cheque bearing No.450288, issued by the petitioner, for the discharge in whole or in part of the debt, is returned by the bank unpaid because the amount of money standing to the credit of the account was insufficient. In the complaint, it is further averred that immediately thereafter complainant served a registered notice on the petitioner but in response to the same no endeavour was made by her to pay the requisite amount. With all these positive assertions, complainant craved for prosecuting the petitioner and punishing her for offence under Section 138 of the Act. The learned trial Court, by order dated 25.07.2011 proceeded to take cognizance of the aforesaid offence against the petitioner and registered the case. Upon appearance of the petitioner on 14.03.2013, substance of accusation was read out to her by the learned trial Court and after her denial proceeded with the trial. In order to prove accusation against the petitioner, complainant Bheru Nath appeared in the witness box and testified on oath and also exhibited 6 documents. After conclusion of evidence of the complainant, statement of petitioner-accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and acceding to her prayer she was allowed to produce defence evidence. Petitioner herself appeared in the witness box and testified on oath. 4. It so happened that during pendency of the proceedings in the matter before learned trial Court, original complainant expired and therefore his legal heir son Harendra was allowed to pursue the complaint case vide order dated 13th of January 2015. Petitioner herself appeared in the witness box and testified on oath. 4. It so happened that during pendency of the proceedings in the matter before learned trial Court, original complainant expired and therefore his legal heir son Harendra was allowed to pursue the complaint case vide order dated 13th of January 2015. The learned trial Court after hearing final arguments, by verdict dated 23rd of April 2015 indicted the petitioner for offence under Section 138 of the Act and handed down sentence of one year simple imprisonment and also awarded compensation to the complainant in a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-. 5. At the threshold, learned appellate Court issued notice to the respondent and requisitioned record of the trial Court. Later on, sentence awarded to the petitioner is suspended by the learned appellate Court vide order dated 20th of May 2015. The proceedings before the learned appellate Court continued for almost 14 months and thereafter on 23rd of July 2016 at her behest an application under Section 391 Cr.P.C. is submitted for craving leave of the appellate Court to adduce additional evidence in the form of examining Bank Manager along with documents. The appellate Court by the order impugned rejected the application with specific observation that there are no concrete reasons for taking additional evidence in the matter. While scrutinizing the prayer of petitioner, the learned appellate Court also observed that the so called defence putforth by the appellate at this stage is an afterthought inasmuch as no such plea was raised during trial. The learned appellate Court further recorded a definite finding in the impugned order that neither any document showing communication by the petitioner to Bank for stopping payment of the cheque are produced and exhibited nor at her behest any endeavour is made to examine bank manager as her defence witness during trial is sufficient to decline her prayer. While thwarting prayer of the petitioner, learned appellate Court also found her statements recorded as defence witness under Section 315 Cr.P.C. relevant. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor, perused the impugned order and the materials available on record. 7. Before switching on to the afflictions of the petitioner, at the threshold, it is desirable for the Court to examine powers of the appellate Court under Section 391 Cr.P.C. 8. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor, perused the impugned order and the materials available on record. 7. Before switching on to the afflictions of the petitioner, at the threshold, it is desirable for the Court to examine powers of the appellate Court under Section 391 Cr.P.C. 8. Legislature in its wisdom has conferred powers on the appellate Court to take additional evidence depending upon its necessity. Section 391 Cr.P.C. reads as under: "391. 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 be 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 appeal. (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." 9. A bare reading of above quoted Section 391 Cr.P.C. makes it abundantly clear that it contemplates a further inquiry by taking additional evidence when the conviction by the lower Court is based upon some evidence which might legally support it but in the opinion of the appellate Court is not quite satisfactory. There is no quarrel in the legal position that primary object of Section 391 Cr.P.C. is the prevention of guilty man's escape through some careless or ignorance proceedings before a Court or vindication of an innocent person wrongly accused. Therefore, if the appellate Court thinks that it is necessary in the interest of justice to take additional evidence, it can allow additional evidence to be produced at the behest of either party. 10. Indisputably, in the instant case, petitioner has participated in the proceedings before learned trial Court and at no point of time she raised/substantiated her plea that concerned bank is communicated to stop payment of the disputed cheque. 10. Indisputably, in the instant case, petitioner has participated in the proceedings before learned trial Court and at no point of time she raised/substantiated her plea that concerned bank is communicated to stop payment of the disputed cheque. It is also noteworthy that she herself has appeared in the witness box as defence witness by taking shelter of Section 315 Cr.P.C. and in her deposition asserted that a communication was sent to the bank for stopping payment of the disputed cheque but that assertion of the petitioner was found to be in contradiction to the reasons assigned by the bank for dishonouring the cheque. Inaction on the part of petitioner to wriggle out from this apparent contradiction despite availing opportunity to adduce defence evidence itself is sufficient to infer inherent fallacy in her alleged defence. As a matter of fact, the bank has dishonoured the cheque on account of insufficiency of funds in the account of the petitioner. The memo issued by the bank while dishonouring the disputed cheque and subsequent information in this behalf Ex.P/4 and P/5 respectively were on record before the learned trial Court containing the requisite recitals for return of the cheque unpaid. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, in the backdrop of peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case, additional evidence is not at all necessary for the just decision of the case. There cannot be two opinions that discretion vested in the appellate Court under Section 391 Cr.P.C. to take additional evidence is not intended to fill up the lacuna in the prosecution/defence evidence or to make out a different case than the one already on record. 11. In totality, the reasons assigned by the appellate Court for declining prayer of the petitioner in the impugned order are based on sound reasoning which is not liable to be interfered with in exercise of inherent jurisdiction sans element of miscarriage of justice or abuse of the process of the Court. Resultantly, petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed.