JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Sections 397 r/w. 401 of Cr.P.C. to (i) call for records in Crl.M.P.No.7381 of 2019 in Crl.A.No.82 of 2017 on the file of the Principal Session Judge of Kancheepuram at Chengalpattu; (ii) set aside the order dated 08th December 2020 passed in Crl.M.P.Nos.7381 of 2019 in Crl.A.No.82 of 2017 on the file of the Principal Session Judge of Kancheepuram at Chengalpattu. R/w. (iii) direct the Principal Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu to take additional evidence presented in Crl.M.P.Nos.7381 of 2019 in Crl.A.No.82 of 2017 on the file of the Principal Session Judge of Kancheepuram at Chengalpattu.) 1. The petitioner is the 1st appellant before the Sessions Court and arrayed as A-1 in the criminal case before the trial Court and the respondent prosecution registered the case against the petitioner herein for the offences punishable under Sections 409 r/w.109, 120 (B) IPC. After trial, the trial Court convicted the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 409 IPC r/w. 109 IPC and 120 (B) IPC and sentenced them to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 3 months. 2. Challenging the said judgment, the petitioner has filed appeal before the Principal Sessions Court, Chengalpattu, Kanchipuram, in C.A.No.82 of 2017 and during the argument, the petitioners/accused filed the petition in Crl.M.P.No.7381 of 2019 under Section 391 Cr.P.C. to adduce additional evidence. After considering the same, the petition was dismissed. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed the present revision. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though the petitioner has enough documents to disprove the case of the prosecution and prove the case of the defence, did not file the same, as the prosecution has to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and therefore the petitioner has not filed these documents. However, the trial Court failed to consider the fact that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the case and fastened the liability on the petitioner. The learned District Judge expressed his view that the defence failed to prove their case and therefore, convicted all the accused and at the time of arguments in appeal, the learned District Judge expressed his view that the defence would have disproved the prosecution case by producing necessary documents. 4. The learned District Judge expressed his view that the defence failed to prove their case and therefore, convicted all the accused and at the time of arguments in appeal, the learned District Judge expressed his view that the defence would have disproved the prosecution case by producing necessary documents. 4. The petitioner has ample documents to disprove the case of the prosecution and prove the defence. But the Appellate Court dismissed on the ground of delay and laches and during the investigation, some of the petitioners approached for quashing the charge sheet and failed and went upto the Supreme Court and they have also faced the trial and now in order to protract the appeal, they have come forward with the present petition. 5. The Appellate Judge failed to look into the relevant documents and the relevant documents are very much connected to this case. With the above documents, the petitioner would very much establish the defence and it would be helpful to the petitioner and if the documents come to the Court and permitted to be lead in evidence, the judgment would be otherwise and therefore, an opportunity to be given to the petitioner. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that he also filed a petition under Section 243(2) Cr.P.C. Even though he filed a petition under Section 243 (2) Cr.P.C. before the trial Court, but the trial Court dismissed the petition without looking into the merits of the petition. 7. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that though the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity, he failed to utilize the opportunity and he failed to lead the defence evidence and produce these documents. These documents very much available even at the time of closing the prosecution evidence and posted for defence witness and even in the appeal stage, he has not raised any grounds of appeal and he has not filed any application along with the appeal or on the date of filing the appeal till the closing of the arguments and reserved for judgment. Subsequently for some reason, the learned District Judge could not pronounce the judgment and the successor reopened the arguments and at that time after the arguments only, he filed the petition before pronouncing the judgment and therefore, the Sessions Judge dismissed the petition on the ground of delay and that to protract the case he filed the petition. Subsequently for some reason, the learned District Judge could not pronounce the judgment and the successor reopened the arguments and at that time after the arguments only, he filed the petition before pronouncing the judgment and therefore, the Sessions Judge dismissed the petition on the ground of delay and that to protract the case he filed the petition. There is no merit in the revision. Therefore, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed. During the pendency of the appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, the defacto complainant approached this Court in Crl.O.P.No.20159 of 2019. This Court directed to dispose of the appeal within a period of three months. After passing of the order by this Court, the petitioner approached the Appellate Court by way of Crl.M.P.Nos.7381 of 2019 under Section 391 Cr.P.C., to adduce additional evidence. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the said petition, holding that the petitioner has not made any prima facie case. 8. Heard and perused the records. 9. Admittedly, the case was registered against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 409 r/w. 109 & 120(B) IPC and trial Court after trial, convicted the petitioner. Challenging the said conviction, all the petitioners filed appeal before the learned Sessions Judge in Crl.A.No.82 of 2017 and the Sessions Judge also heard the arguments and reserved for judgments and for some reason the Judge could not pronounce the Judgment. The successor came to the office and re-heard the appeal. The learned Judge raised some queries with the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) for the appellant thereafter the petitioner filed the application under Section 391 r/w.311 Cr.P.C., to receive additional evidence and documents. Therefore, as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel that the documents relied on by the petitioner in the applications before the Appellate Court were very much available even before conclusion of trial. However, when the first opportunity was given to the petitioner he has failed to avail the opportunity either to mark the documents with the prosecution witness or whenever they lead the defence evidence. However, when the first opportunity was given to the petitioner he has failed to avail the opportunity either to mark the documents with the prosecution witness or whenever they lead the defence evidence. However, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and also on the merits of the documents, this Court finds that since all the documents are related to Criminal Appeal No.82 of 2017, in order to give an opportunity to the petitioner, this Court is inclined to allow the revision and set aside the order passed by the Sessions Court in Crl.M.P.Nos.7381 of 2019. However, all the documents related to the prosecution were very much available even on the date of commencement of trial. At the time of proceedings with the trial, either the petitioner should have marked the documents before the prosecution witnesses during cross examination or the documents should have been shown in the written statement during the proceedings under Section 313 Cr.P.C. or by examining the defence witnesses. 10. It is clear that the petitioner failed to avail the opportunity available to him before the trial Court. However, as pointed out by the learned Government Advocate, the petitioner approached more than once this Court, by way of other applications and also fully participated in the trial and all the opportunity given to the petitioner by the trial Court also, however, they failed to avail the opportunity. Further it is pertinent to state that even at the time of filing appeal also, he has not filed the petition and produced the documents and there is no such ground taken in the appeal. 11. On a perusal of the documents submitted by the petitioner, it is seen that those documents are relevant to the case. Therefore, the order passed by the Lower Appellate Court in Crl.M.P.No.7381 of 2019 is set aside. However, the delay is solely on the part of the petitioner. Therefore, this Court is inclined to impose cost of Rs.1,00,000/- [Rupees One Lakh only] to the petitioner and the petitioner is directed to deposit the amount to the Corona Relief Fund within a period of 15 days i.e., on or before 21.01.2021, failing which the Revision shall stand automatically dismissed without any reference to this Court. 12. Therefore, this Court is inclined to impose cost of Rs.1,00,000/- [Rupees One Lakh only] to the petitioner and the petitioner is directed to deposit the amount to the Corona Relief Fund within a period of 15 days i.e., on or before 21.01.2021, failing which the Revision shall stand automatically dismissed without any reference to this Court. 12. However, it is made clear that the Lower Appellate Court/Principal Sessions Judge of Kancheepuram at Chengalpattu, is directed to take such evidence either by itself or issue appropriate directions for taking evidence by the Magistrate. 13. The Criminal Revision is disposed of with the above directions. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.