JUDGMENT P.K. Lohra, J. - Accused-petitioner has laid this revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. to assail impugned order dated 31st of January, 2018, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Jodhpur Metropolitan (for short, 'learned appellate Court'), rejecting his application under Section 391 Cr.P.C., 1973 in an appeal filed by him against the judgment of learned trial Court convicting him for offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 2. By the aforesaid application, petitioner has made endeavour to take certain documents on record and further to mark the same as exhibits. Respondent-complainant contested the application and learned appellate Court, upon examining the matter in light of the provision contained in Section 391 Cr.P.C., 1973 rejected his prayer. 3. I have learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. 4. There remains no quarrel that at the threshold respondent-complainant filed a complaint against petitioner for offence under section 138 of the N.I. Act before learned trial Court and, during trial no endeavour was made by the petitioner to produce any document. The learned trial Court, thereafter, decided the matter finally and, thereupon, the petitioner preferred an appeal in the year 2015, which is pending for a considerable time and it is only after more than two years, he made endeavour for taking the documents on record by invoking Section 391 Cr.P.C., 1973 Learned appellate Court has observed in the impugned order that earlier also the petitioner made endeavour to lay application under sections 311 and 391 Cr.P.C, 1973 but the same was rejected on 31st of January 2017, and therefore, this application is essentially designed to prolong the proceedings in the appeal. It is also observed by the learned appellate Court that by filing repeated applications, petitioner is abusing process of law, and therefore, no indulgence can be granted to him. 5. Having regard to peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, appellate Court has not committed any illegality or impropriety in rejecting the application of petitioner. 6. Consequently, revision petition fails and same is, hereby, dismissed summarily.