ORDER : 1. The present revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C has been filed against the order dated 07.12.2024 passed by learned Additional Session Judge, Women Atrocities cases, Bhilwara whereby, the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 391 Cr.P.C . for adducing evidence was dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate No.2, Bhilwara in Criminal Case No.1954/2016 whereby, the petitioner convicted and sentence for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Being aggrieved the petitioner filed an appeal which is pending consideration before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara. During pendency of the appeal, the petitioner preferred an application under Section 391 Cr.P.C to record the statements of complainant Pramod and his son Nitigya Mansinghka arising out of FIR No. 274/2013 so also the copy of FIR and challan, however, the appellate court rejected the application vide order dated 07.12.2024. Hence, this revision petition. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the appellate court has committed grave error of law in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Section 391 Cr.P.C inasmuch as the documents are vital for just decision of the case. It is argued that the complainant had filed a case against the petitioner for offence under Section 420 & 406 IPC in which the trial court had recorded the statement of PW/1 Pramod Mansinghkha and Nitigya Mansinghka and trial court had acquitted the petitioner. The petitioner is seeking to produce the statement of these two witnesses on record for just decision of the case, however, the appellate court mechanically dismissed the said application. It is prayed that dismissal of the application under Section 391 Cr.P.C to bring on record essential piece of evidence, will result into grave injustice to the petitioner and therefore, the same is liable to be allowed. Learned counsel placed reliance on judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Brig. Sukhjeet Singh (Retd.) MVC Vs. State of U.P. & Ors ., 2019 (1) CJ (Cri.) (SC) 137 and judgment of Division Bench Bench of this Court in the case of Pankaj & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2019 (2) CJ (Cri.) (Raj.) 1051 . 4. Learned counsel placed reliance on judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Brig. Sukhjeet Singh (Retd.) MVC Vs. State of U.P. & Ors ., 2019 (1) CJ (Cri.) (SC) 137 and judgment of Division Bench Bench of this Court in the case of Pankaj & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2019 (2) CJ (Cri.) (Raj.) 1051 . 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order and argued that after conclusion of trial, at the appellate stage, the petitioner is seeking to produce the said documents only with an intention to delay the matter. It is argued that the petitioner had every opportunity to produce the evidence at the time of trial before the learned Special Judicial Magistrate (N.I Act) Cases No.2, Bhilwara, but the petitioner failed to do so, nor did he file any application to bring the said evidence on record subsequently and now at the appellate stage, the petitioner has filed the application. Therefore, the appellate court has rightly dismissed the application filed under section 391 Cr.P.C . which does not call for any interference from this Court. Learned counsel placed reliance on judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mitthulal and Anr. Vs. State of M.P., 1975 3 SCC 529. 5. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and carefully gone through the documents on record. 6. At the outset it is relevant to discuss section 391 of Crpc which is quoted herein below :- “ 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.” 7. (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.” 7. Section 391 of the Criminal Procedure Code constitutes a pivotal legal provision that confers upon appellate courts the authority to admit additional evidence when deemed indispensable for the proper administration of justice. This provision ensures that in circumstances where critical evidence has been inadvertently omitted or overlooked at the trial stage, the appellate court is empowered to remedy such omissions to avert any miscarriage of justice. However, the exercise of this power must be approached with the utmost caution and circumspection, taking into account the specific facts and nuances of each case. Judicial precedents consistently underscore that, while the discretion conferred under Section 391 is expansive, it must not be exercised in an arbitrary or capricious manner. The overarching objective of this provision is to facilitate the just and fair adjudication of matters, rather than to unduly protract or complicate the trial process. The introduction of additional evidence should be considered solely in instances where it is indispensable for the fair and equitable determination of the case at hand, and where such evidence was either not available or could not have been adduced during the original trial, despite the exercise of due diligence by the parties involved. 8. Furthermore, it is imperative to recognize that the exercise of this power under Section 391 must not be construed as a means to rectify deficiencies in the trial proceedings or to address issues that could have been rectified during the trial phase. The appellate court is duty-bound to refrain from employing this provision to reopen matters that are speculative or inconsequential, or to unduly delay the resolution of the case, as such actions would subvert the foundational principle of timely justice. Accordingly, while the discretion vested under Section 391 is broad, its exercise must be grounded in a commitment to the pursuit of truth, fairness, and judicial economy, ensuring that it is not misused to unnecessarily extend or complicate the proceedings. 9. In the present case, a complaint was previously filed by the complainant against the petitioner for offences under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 9. In the present case, a complaint was previously filed by the complainant against the petitioner for offences under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). In this regard, the statements of Prosecution Witness (PW/1) Pramod Mansinghka and Nitigya Mansinghka (PW/2) were recorded, and the trial court subsequently acquitted the petitioner. The petitioner now seeks to introduce the statements of these two witnesses on record, as they are deemed relevant to the just adjudication of the case. However, the application was dismissed by the appellate court, which primarily relied upon the testimony of Pramod Mansinghka, who made a crucial admission: neither he nor his wife had any financial obligations towards the petitioner, Navneet, subsequent to 24.03.2012. This acknowledgment not only casts doubt on the veracity of the allegations but also reveals the inherent weakness of these claims, as they are unsupported by sufficient evidence. 10. In light of the foregoing, and without delving into the substantive merits of the case, it is reasonable to assert that the application warrants consideration under Section 391 CrPC. Allowing the introduction of this evidence would serve the interests of hustice, ensuring that all relevant and material facts are comprehensively examined prior to the rendering of a final judgment. Such an approach would not only safeguard the appellant’s right to a fair hearing but also enable the court to render a just and informed decision, based on a comprehensive evaluation of all the facts and evidence available. 11. So far as the case of Mitthulal and Anr. (Supra) cited by the respondent, it is imperative to note that the decision to grant or deny an application under Section 391 of the Criminal Procedure Code is contingent upon the specific facts and circumstances inherent to each individual case. The judiciary possesses discretionary authority to evaluate such applications, and this discretion is grounded in principles of justice and fairness. The rationale behind this discretion lies in the recognition of the unique nature of each case, which may involve varying degrees of complexity, urgency, and the interplay of rights and responsibilities. The court must weigh the merits of the application against the backdrop of the legal framework and the broader principles governing criminal procedure. 12. Therefore, the revision petition is partly allowed. The court must weigh the merits of the application against the backdrop of the legal framework and the broader principles governing criminal procedure. 12. Therefore, the revision petition is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 07.12.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Act cases, Bhilwara is quashed and petitioner is permitted to produce the statement of PW/1 Pramod Mansinghkha and PW/2 Nitigya Mansinghka and the appellate court is directed to take the same on record. However, no other document/evidence shall be permitted on behalf of petitioner by the appellate court. The appellate court is directed to decide the appeal expeditiously, in accordance with law. 13. Stay petition is also disposed of.