SL. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS 04.03.2025 CRLR No.798 of 2024 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Tapan Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist. 2. Mr. S.K. Shandilya, learned counsel for the respondent. 3. This criminal revision has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 03.10.2024 passed by IVth Addl. District & Sessions Judge Haridwar in Criminal Appeal No.28 of 2024, whereby the Appellate Court rejected the application No.19 Kha filed by the revisionist under Section 391 of Cr. P.C. for taking the additional documents on record for proper disposal of the criminal appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that the revisionist wants to bring on record the additional documents i.e. bank statement, raw- material and labour payments etc., besides photograph of the construction. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist would further submit that as per Section 391 of Cr.P.C. the documents, which were available with revisionist at the time of trial, can be filed at the time of appellate stage. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that all these documents, which the revisionist wants to bring on record, were available with him at the time of trial and he could easily produced the said documents at the time of defence. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent would rely on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ajitsinh Chehuji Rathod Vs. State of Gujarat and another reported in (2024) 4 SCC 453, wherein the Court has held as follows:- “At the outset, we may note that the law is well-settled by a catena of judgments rendered by this Court that power to record additional evidence under Section 391 Cr.P.C should only be exercised when the party making such request was prevented from presenting the evidence in the trial despite due diligence being exercised or that the facts giving rise to such prayer came to light at a later stage during pendency of the appeal and that non-recording of such evidence may lead to failure of justice.” 8. Leaned counsel for the revisionist would submit that the application of the revisionist filed under Section 391 of Cr.P.C. have not disclosed any facts that despite due diligence, the revisionist could not file relevant documents. 9. Learned counsel for the revisionist could not show any impropriety, illegality or incorrectness in the impugned judgment and order in the proceedings of the lower court. 10. In view of above legal position, this Court is not inclined to entertain this criminal revision. Accordingly, criminal revision is hereby dismissed. (Alok Mahra, J.) 04.03.2025 BS