THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Crl.R.C.No.922 of 2010 ORDER:- This revision is directed against the order dated 19-4-2010 passed in Crl.M.P.No.2081 of 2010 in C.C.No.273 of 2009 on the file of the XV Additional Judge-cum-XIX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, whereby and whereunder the learned Judge dismissed the application filed by the complainant to recall P.Ws.1 and 2. Revision came to be admitted on 29-4-2010. The petitioner has been permitted to take out notices to respondents No.1 and 2/accused by way of publication. The petitioner took out notices and published in Eenadu Telugu Daily newspaper of Ranga Reddy District and filed proof of service. Despite service being effected to the respondents No.1 and 2/accused by way of publication, none appeared on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2/accued. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the material brought on record. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the letter dated 28-4-2006 could not be mentioned in the complaint as the Supervisor who obtained the said letter from the accused had not brought to the notice as on the date of filing of the complaint before the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad. I have gone through the material placed on record. The petitioner filed a complaint before the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad, alleging, inter alia, that the respondents No.1 and 2 herein issued the cheque for Rs.11,82,124/- towards discharge of their existing liability and on presentation of the said cheque, the same came to be returned with an endorsement “funds insufficient” vide cheque return memo dated 9-8-2006. Thereupon a statutory notice came to be issued to the respondents No.1 and 2. Notice sent to the 1st respondent returned with an endorsement as “not claimed” whereas the notice sent to respondent No.2 came to be served on 2-2-2007. The complaint has been taken on file by the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad as C.C.No.273 of 2007. The accused entered appearance through a Counsel. On examination of the accused under Section 251 of Cr.P.C., he denied the accusation levelled against him. The complainant examined two witnesses on its behalf. After examination of P.Ws.1 and 2, the complainant filed Crl.M.P.No.2081 of 2010 to recall P.W.2 for further chief-examination for marking the letter dated 28-4-2006. The respondents No.1 and 2/accused filed counter resisting the application. It is stated in the counter that the complainant has not referred the so called document in its complaint or in the notice and therefore the document cannot be received in evidence. For better appreciation, I may refer para 4 of the counter filed by respondents No.1 and 2 resisting the application of the petitioner, which reads as hereunder:- “Respondents submit that the contention of petitioner that he could not file the said document at the time of filing of the case as the same was in the possession of P.W.2 cannot be true. As P.W.2 was in employment when the complaint was filed in 2007 as P.W.2 resigned in 2008. According to his evidence as such the petitioner did not refer the so called document in his complaint or in the notice, therefore silent on part of petitioner creates doubt on the genuineness of the document. The petitioner is not entitle to recall P.W.2 to mark the said documents when the P.W.2 is not the person to whom the said document was addressed.” The learned Magistrate on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the Counsel appearing for the parties, came to the conclusion that receiving the letter causes much prejudice to the respondents No.1 and 2/accused and thereby proceeded to dismiss the application by order dated 19-4-2010. Hence, this revision. As seen from the material brought on record, the petitioner did not refer the said letter either in the statutory notice or in the complaint before the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad. There being no reference of the said letter in the statutory notice or in the complaint, if it is allowed to be marked, much prejudice is going to be caused to the respondents No.1 and 2/accused in their defence. The trial Court is justified in dismissing the application. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _________________________ B.Seshasayana Reddy, J 29th November, 2010 smr