IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1120 OF 2010 BETWEEN: V. Krishna S/o. Venkateswarlu …. Petitioner AND State of Andhra Pradesh through the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another …. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1120 OF 2010 ORDER: The petitioner / accused questions order dated 26-04-2010 passed by the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Khammam in Criminal M.P. No.252 of 2010 in C.C. No.172 of 2007, by which the lower Court allowed petition filed by the complainant under Section 311 Cr.P.C., and received promissory note filed along with the petition. 2. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that the complainant did not state as to why she failed to file the promissory note originally and that filing of promissory note at a subsequent stage amounts to filling up lacuna in her case. 3. The case, which is pending in the lower Court is one for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short, NI Act). It is case of the second respondent / complainant that the accused borrowed Rs.1,00,000/- from her on 10-04-2005 and executed demand promissory note in her favour on the same day and that subsequently on demands the accused gave the cheque for Rs.1,30,000/- towards discharge of the promissory note debt and that it was dishonoured. Therefore, case of the complainant in the lower Court is primarily based on promissory note dated 10-04-2005, which was disclosed by her in the complaint itself. The accused is not put to surprise by filing the original promissory note at a later point of time. Crucial documents in a case under Section 138 of the NI Act are dishonoured cheque, dishonour memo and demand notice issued by the complainant after dishonour. The promissory note is only a legally enforceable debt and it is not the case document itself, case document being dishonoured cheque. For whatever reason the complainant did not file the original promissory note along with the complaint, the complainant cannot be shut out from producing the same at a later stage. In this case, the complainant never attempted to improve her case and never intended to fill up any lacunae in the case. The lower Court rightly allowed the petition to recall PW-1 for marking the promissory note in question. 4. In the result, the revision petition is dismissed. _____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J June 21, 2010. KTL