HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1202 OF 2010 DATE:05.07.2010 Between: Abdul Jaleel Khan …… Petitioner. And: State of AP., rep. by its Public Prosecutor and another …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1202 OF 2010 ORDER: 1. The complainant in the case pertaining to offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, seeks to file this revision case against order dated 10.03.2010 passed by the XX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in Criminal M.P.No.304 of 2010 in C.C.No.2 of 2009, by which the lower court refused to summon additional witness by name Mohammed Pasha @ Pasha Bhai under Section 311 Cr.P.C. 2. The present petition in the lower court was filed after closure of the complainant’s evidence, examination of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C and defence evidence in which D.Ws.1 to 4 were examined. When the matter was coming up for arguments in the lower court, the complainant came up with the present petition. It is the complainant’s case that the accused had left construction contract with the complainant in the middle and that thereafter construction work was completed with Pasha Bhai with whom he entered into Exs.P.16 and P.17 agreements. Those agreements were already marked as Exs.P.16 and P.17 during P.W.1’s evidence itself. P.W.1 is a party to the said agreements. Since he produced the agreements and spoke about the same as P.W.1, the complainant need not further examine any other person to prove the said agreements. In so far as completion of the work is concerned, the complainant examined P.Ws.2 and 3 who are the person who supplied construction material and mason under Pasha Bhai. Nothing prevented the complainant to examine Pasha Bhai as witness when his evidence was allowed by the lower court. It is stated by the petitioner’s counsel that the said Pasha Bhai is under the influence of the accused and is refusing to come to court and give evidence on behalf of the complainant and that therefore, he could not be examined earlier. When the proposed witness is refusing to give evidence in support of the complainant, no purpose will be served to summon the said Pasha Bhai as additional witness for the complainant. There is already sufficient evidence let in by the complainant in support of his case and it is for the lower court to assess the entire evidence and come to a conclusion on the facts in issue. The lower court rightly exercised its discretion in refusing to summon an additional witness for the complainant when the case is posted for the arguments in the lower court. There are no infirmities in order passed by the lower court. 3. Hence, the petition is dismissed. __________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J. Date:05.07.2010. Gk. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1202 OF 2010 Date:05.07.2010 Gk.