ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. The appellant herein was tried for the charge under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC'), on the basis of an FIR lodged by respondent no. 1 (wife of the appellant). The Trial Court after completion of the trial and recording the evidence came to the conclusion that no such charge under Section 4 98A IPC was made out and acquitted the appellant. The appeal was filed against this order which was also dismissed by the Sessions Court thereby upholding the findings of the Trial Court. The revision petition against the said order was filed by respondent no. 1 which is still pending. In this revision petition, an application was moved for bringing on record the medical report on the purported ground that the Investigating Officer had failed to annex the same along with the charge sheet. The High Court has, vide impugned order dated 13.07.2017, allowed this application invoking the powers under Section 391/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Reading of the High Court's order would reveal that the High Court is influenced by the fact that the medical report is an admitted document viz. it is the document which stands admitted by both the parties and since it is an important piece of evidence it should be seen during the arguments. The High Court has gone to the extent of observing that it is not even necessary to prove this document as it is admitted by the appellant as well. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that it is not an admitted document as observed by the High Court. In support of this contention he has drawn our attention to the discussion held by the Trial Court on this aspect. We find that the aforesaid submission of the appellant has force. We fail to understand as to on what basis the aforesaid document is treated as admitted document. It was submitted by the learned counsel for respondent no. 1 that the Investigating Officer in his deposition had categorically mentioned that he had forgotten to annex the said document along with the charge sheet. Even if this was so, at the time when his evidence was being recorded it was realized that document in question was not produced by him. 1 that the Investigating Officer in his deposition had categorically mentioned that he had forgotten to annex the said document along with the charge sheet. Even if this was so, at the time when his evidence was being recorded it was realized that document in question was not produced by him. However, no attempt was made at the stage of trial of the case to bring this document on record so much so even after the acquittal of the appellant appeal was filed before the Sessions Court. No efforts or steps were taken for bringing this document on record. 5. In these circumstances, we fail to understand as to why such a document should be allowed to be placed on record for the first time in the revision petition which is filed by respondent no.1 as aforesaid. Moreover, the entire reasoning given by the High Court in admitting the document is flaws. 6. We, thus, allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order.