M.Balaiah v. State Of Telangana

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. KESHAVA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.625 of 2018 O R D E R:

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the second respondent.

The present criminal revision case is filed questioning the orders dated 09.02.2018 passed in Crl.M.P.No.172 of 2018 in C.C.No. 234 of 2017, on the file of the Court of the XIX Special Magistrate, Hyderabad, dismissing the petition. The facts of the case in brief are that the second respondent, filed C.C.No. 234 of 2017 against the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In the above said C.C., the second respondent's evidence is completed. After 313 Cr.P.C. examination the matter is coming up for arguments. At that stage, the petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.172 of 2018, under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to recall PW-1 for further cross examination on the ground that there are certain mandatory aspects come to light and therefore, the petitioner wants to elicit the truth before the Court below. The second respondent filed counter and opposed the same. The Court below, after hearing the matter was pleased to dismiss the petition by orders dated 09.02.2018. Aggrieved by the same, the present criminal revision case is filed.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the Court below committed an error in dismissing the petition without giving any proper reasons. The finding of the Court below, while dismissing the petition, that the petition filed is nothing but to drag on the proceedings further is incorrect. The denial of cross examination of PW-1 without giving a specific reason is bad in law.

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent, opposed the relief sought for in the petition and supported the impugned orders.

Having heard both the learned counsel and form the perusal of the material on record, it is revealed that in the petition filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C., the petitioner simply stated that there are certain mandatory aspects come to light, so he wants to elicit the truth before the Court. Except the said statement, nothing has been stated. In fact, the Court below while dismissing the petition was pleased to observe that from the record it is evident that the learned counsel for the petitioner cross examined PW-1 at length. When the matter is coming up for arguments, filing of the such petition would suggest that it is filed only to drag on the proceedings. Be that as it may, even a perusal of the petition filed by the petitioner, for recall of PW-1, no specific averments are made and no reasons are given as to on which aspect the

further examination of PW-1, is required. Though this Court and the Apex Court, construed Section 311 Cr.P.C. liberally; but at the same time, unless the basic ingredients are complied with, the question of entertaining the petitions thereunder, may not arise. In the case on hand, absolutely no reasons are mentioned in the petition. Therefore, there are no merits in the revision and it is liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, the criminal revision case is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand dismissed. __________________ P. KESHAVA RAO, J Date: 03.07.2018.

CCM

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. KESHAVA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.625 of 2018 Date:03.07.2018 ccm