IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2005 of 2009 DATE:17.08.2010 Between: S.V.Ananda Rao and others …… Petitioners And: P.Rami Reddy and others …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2005 of 2009 ORDER : This revision petition is filed by the complainant against order dated 13.11.2009 passed by the VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in Crl.M.P.No.4461 of 2009 in C.C. No.356 of 2000 by which the lower Court allowed the petition filed by A-1 to A-3 under Section 294 Cr.P.C receiving documents filed along with the petition subject to proof and relevance. Even though the accused prayed for marking of the documents straightaway under Section 294 Cr.P.C, the lower Court simply received the documents subject to proof of relevance. The accused should have filed the petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C instead of Section 294 Cr.P.C. The documents filed along with the petition are 9 in number. They are all private documents, certified copies of which were obtained from another litigation. The last document is evidence affidavit dated 16.11.2004 and cross-examination of P.W-2 in a civil suit on the file of IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in O.S. No.299 of 1999. Oral evidence of P.W-2 in another civil matter cannot be marked in the present proceedings. The proper procedure is to confront portions of the said evidence of P.W-2 and to mark the same in case he denied the same. It is a totally irrelevant document, which the accused cannot seek the lower Court to mark it straight away. In so far as other 8 documents are concerned, the lower Court received the documents subject to proof and relevance and they have to be marked through D.W-1/A-1 by recalling the said witness, in case they are relevant for the purpose of the pending case in the lower Court. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that order passed by the lower Court is proper in respect of document Nos.1 to 8 filed along with the petition and not in respect of document No.9 filed along with the petition in the lower Court. 2) In the result, the revision petition is partly allowed rejecting the document described as evidence affidavit dated 16.11.2004 and cross- examination of P.W-2 on the file of IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in O.S. No.299 of 1999; and the revision petition is partly dismissed in respect of documents 1 to 8. The lower Court is directed to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible since the matter pertains to the year 2000. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J August 17, 2010 KSH