Order : Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J. Opposite party no.2 is complainant, whose case under Section 138 of the N.I. Act was dismissed by the trial Court inter alia on the ground that the said cheque drawn by the accused was lost and misused by the complainant. 2. Complainant preferred appeal before the Sessions Court being Cr. Appeal No.417 of 2024, wherein the petition under Section 391 of the Cr.P.C. was filed to adduce additional evidence in the form of documentary evidence with regard to report received from concerned police station to lodge Sanha by opposite party no.2 with respect to missing of the cheque. Further prayer was made to lead the report of the handwriting expert as additional evidence. 3. Learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi allowed the said petition considering the ratio laid down in Ajitsinh Chehuji Rathod Vs. State of Gujarat & Another, ( 2024) 4 SCC 453 . Aggrieved by the said order, present revision petition has been preferred. 4. It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of petitioner that Section 391 of the Cr.P.C. is not intended to fill-up the lacuna and lapses on the part of prosecution. This has been emphatically stated in the authority relied upon by the learned appellate Court, wherein it has been held that power to record additional evidence under Section 391 of the Cr.P.C. should only be exercised when party making such request was prevented from presenting evidence in trial despite due diligence being exercised or that facts giving rise to such prayer came to light at a later stage during pendency of appeal and that non-recording of such evidence may lead to failure of justice. 5. It is submitted that the Sanha was adduced into evidence on behalf of the petitioner before the trial Court and was marked as exhibit without any objection on behalf of the complainant. However, at the trial stage, no effort was made to get the enquiry report following the Sanha to be brought on record. Now at the belated stage, attempt is being made to adduce it before the appellate Court. With regard to the handwriting expert report, it is submitted that it is a private document and it is not clarified that it is private document and it was not referred by the trial Court or the first appellate Court to any handwriting expert. 6. With regard to the handwriting expert report, it is submitted that it is a private document and it is not clarified that it is private document and it was not referred by the trial Court or the first appellate Court to any handwriting expert. 6. Learned counsel on behalf of complainant submits that a non-existent Sanha was used by petitioner/accused in the trial Court to build a false defence. Fraud is something which unravels the entire proceeding detected at any stage, and therefore, the report of enquiry need to be brought on record for the ends of justice. 7. Under Right to Information Act, from the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi an information was sought by Sri Rajendra Gopal, who was the counsel on behalf of the accused in the complaint case, regarding the fact if Sanha was entered or not. A definite information was given to the said query that no such Sanha was ever entered. Therefore, the report regarding the Sanha entry having been made or not, is vital piece of evidence which will shed light on the veracity of defence taken by the accused in the complaint case. 8. I find no infirmity in allowing the petition under Section 391 of the Cr.P.C. so far the report of the concerned police station about the entry having been made regarding the said cheque being lost. This is for the reason that from Annexure 6, which has been enclosed with the present criminal revision, it appears that no such Sanha was ever entered by Kumar Nikesh Sinha, who is the present petitioner and accused in the trial Court. This document will have a bearing and it will be in the interest of justice to not shut this document from scrutiny by the appellate Court. 9. Regarding the second document, namely the handwriting expert’s report, this Court does not find any merit in permitting it to be brought on record. The report does not indicate when the handwriting expert was appointed, nor does the case record reflect that any order was passed by a competent Court directing such appointment for verification of the document in question. In view of the above, allowing the handwriting expert’s report to be taken on record at the appellate stage, would not serve the ends of justice. 10. In view of the above, allowing the handwriting expert’s report to be taken on record at the appellate stage, would not serve the ends of justice. 10. Criminal Revision accordingly is partly allowed thereby setting aside the order permitting the handwriting expert report to be adduced into evidence as additional. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, is disposed of.