IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.804 of 2009 1. NARESH PRASAD, SON OF LATE BAHADUR PRASAD 2. ANITA KUMARI, D/O LATE BAHADUR PRASAD, BOTH RESIDENTS OF CHOWK SARAI RAOD, P.S. KOTWALI, DISTT. GAYA. …PETITIONERS Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. SUSHMA DEVI, WIFE OF NARESH PRASAD RESIDENT OF MOHALLA CHOWK SARAI RAOD, P.S. KOTWALI, DIST. GAYA …OPPOSITE PARTIES ----------- 2. 18.03.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Petitioners who have been convicted under section 498A IPC by the learned trial court filed appeal in the year 2003 which is pending consideration. It appears that an application was filed on 05.01.2001 under section 391 Cr. P.C. to bring on record some additional evidence. Petitioners wanted to bring on record the deposition of the informant/complainant recorded on 17.07.2006 in M.T.S. No.100/05, C.C. of the order dated 30.11.1999, passed by Addl Sessions judge, Gaya in Kotwali P.S. Case No. 81/99 as well as C.C. of the judgment dated 17.01.2007, passed in G.R. No.819/99. It appears that earlier to this they already filed similar application on 22.08.2008 which was rejected by order dated 01.12.2008. Said order was never challenged. Petitioners have also not enclosed the aforesaid order dated 01.12.2008 along with the petition. Having regard to all these facts, the appellate court rejected the said application observing as under: “U/s 391 Cr. P.C. the Appellate court is empowered to take additional evidence if it is 2 necessary for the just decision of the case. This is an appeal of the year 2003 preferred against the judgment dt. 22.1.03. The order dt. 30.11.99 passed by the Addl. District and Sessions Judge 7th, Gaya was well within the knowledge of appellants during the trial of GR. Case No.819/99 Tr. No.274/02 but they did not file it. The C.C. of deposition of the informant dt. 17.7.06, the C.C. of judgment dt. 17.1.07 are not in existence at the time of disposal of G.R. Case No.819/pp,Tr.No.274/02 against the judgment of which this appeal has been preferred and as such these documents could not be considered at the time of appeal. The petition of the appellants dt. 2.8.08 has already been rejected vide order dated 1.12.08 to adduce additional evidence finding no merit. The provision of section 391 Cr.P.c. cannot be invoked to fill up the lacuna of any party rather it is to be applied for the just decision of this case. From perusal of record, it appears that the petition of the appellants dt. 5.1.09 has been filed in order to delay the disposal of this appeal. Accordingly, the petition of the appellants dated 5.1.09 is hereby rejected having no merit.” This Court does not find any patent illegality in the said order meriting interference. The application is accordingly dismissed. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )