1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2390 OF 2008 Ajay @ Madhusudan Surindra Mishra .. Petitioner Versus Mahananda Ramdas Dafal & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Madhav Jamdar for the petitioner. Mr.H.J.Dedhia, A.P.P for the State. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 22nd June 2009. P.C.: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The petitioner filed an appeal against the order of conviction under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. During the pendency of the appeal, he made an application under section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking permission to lead additional evidence. By passing the following order the said application has been rejected. Heard. 2 The application is quite vague. What sort of documentary or oral evidence appellant wants to lead is explained. The list of documents is also not enclosed. Appellant was given more than sufficient opportunity to lead such evidence in T.C but he has failed to do so. Hence, such vague application for leading evidence that in the appeal cannot be allowed. Therefore, application stands rejected. 2. After hearing the counsel for the petitioner and after perusing the application filed by the petitioner, I find that there is no error in the impugned order. In the application filed by the petitioner he has not even given description or details of the documents which he was desirous of producing by way of additional evidence. He has not set out what is the relevance of the documents sought to be produced and as to why the said documents could not be produced earlier. 3. Therefore, on the basis of averments made in the application, the Sessions Court could not 3 have exercised power under section 391 of the said Code. Hence, petition is rejected. However, this order will not preclude the petitioner from filing a proper application invoking provisions of section 391 of the said Code. (A.S.OKA,J)