ORDER : 1. Heard the parties through video conferencing. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter vide serial no. 9(iii) & 9(iv) are minor in nature and because of the lockdown, the petitioner is unable to file the certified true copy of the certain pages, the reference of which has been made in defect no. 9 (iv) hence, it is submitted that the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter at serial no. 9(iii) & 9(iv) be ignored. 3. Considering the facts of this case, the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter at serial no. 9(iii) & 9(iv) are ignored. 4. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has filed this revision against the order dated 10.07.2019 passed in R.C. Case No.02 (A)/2013-D by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge XI-cum-Spl. Judge, CBI, Dhanbad has rejected the prayer of the petitioner to dispense with his personal appearance by exercising his power under Section 205 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that the petitioner is a physically disabled person and in this respect, learned counsel for the petitioner draws attention of this Court to page no.77 of the brief which is a copy of the disability certificate. It is fairly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said disability certificate was never produced before the trial court and it is submitted that the learned trial court ought to have allowed the prayer of the petitioner to dispense his personal appearance, hence, it is submitted that the impugned order be set aside and the prayer of the petitioner be allowed. 5. Learned counsel for the C.B.I. vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner and submits that as admittedly the documents kept at page no.77 was not filed before the trial court and it is not open to be placed before this revisional court while exercising the power under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that since the trial court has rightly rejected the prayer for personal appearance keeping in view the gravity of the offence as inadequate material to show any disability of the petitioner hence, the impugned order ought not to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. 6. 6. The facts of the case, as is relevant for the purpose of this revision, is that the petitioner made a prayer before the trial court to dispense with his personal attendance under Section 205 Cr.P.C. on the sole ground that the petitioner is suffering from the mental disease and his mental condition is very bad and he is under treatment by a doctor. The trial court in the impugned judgment has observed that the petitioner only submitted a photo copy of the prescription in which medicines were written down and apart from that no other document was placed before the trial court. Hence, the trial court was of the opinion that there is insufficient material to show that the petitioner is mentally ill person and he could not come before the court hence, the court below rejected the prayer for dispensing with the personal attendance of the petitioner-accused made under Section 205 Cr.P.C. 7. It is by now a settled principle of law that a fresh document which was not placed before the original court which passed the order impugned, cannot be entertained by the revisional court for the first time, while exercising its revisional jurisdiction. Hence, it will not be proper for this Court to consider the photocopy of the fresh document kept at page 77 of the brief, of this criminal revision, as the same was not placed before the trial court while the said prayer for his dispensing with the personal appearance was made before the trial court. Thus, this Court is of the considered view that in the facts of the case, there is no illegality or impropriety in passing of the impugned order by the trial court. Thus, the impugned order does not want interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, this criminal revision being without any merit is dismissed.