IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD Monday, July 18, 2011. Present: Hon’ble Sri Justice N. Ravi Shankar Crl.R.C..No. 1484 of 2011 Between: Bethina Srinivas …Petitioner and The State of AP and another …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR Crl.R.C..No. 1484 of 2011 Judgment Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 2. The petitioner herein is the complainant in C.C.No. 55 of 2009 on the file of the court of Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalli. He filed petition – Crl.M.P.No. 1404 of 2011 in the said case for summoning the concerned Branch Manager of State Bank of India, Sabbavaram Branch to produce the Saving Bank account copy pertaining to the accused and also a copy of his own Savings Bank account in order to show that the accused never maintained sufficient funds in his account and consequently the cheque given by him was dishonoured on that account. 3. The learned Magistrate dismissed that petition mainly for two reasons. The first reason given by him is that earlier also the petitioner filed two such petitions and though they were allowed he failed to avail the opportunity to summon the Bank Manager and the concerned documents. The other reason given by him is that the petitioner has already filed the relevant slip given by the bank for dishonour of the cheque for want of sufficient funds and that therefore the presumption operates in favour of the complainant under section 146 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, consequently it is not necessary for the petitioner to summon the Bank Manager and in view of the earlier conduct of the complainant, even if the present petition is allowed it would only result in protraction of the proceedings. I agree with both the reasons recorded by the learned Magistrate. 4. The petitioner’s counsel however pointed out that since the petition is one under section 311 Cr.P.C. the court should be liberal in allowing such petitions. True the trial court was earlier liberal in allowing the request of the petitioner, but he did not avail it. The petitioner cannot again come up with the same request and the order of the learned Magistrate shows that he also relied upon S. 146 of the Negotiable Instruments Act which creates a presumption in favour of the petitioner and in case it is found that the presumption cannot be applied to the fact situation here, it shall be open for the complainant to pursue the other remedies in that behalf. 5. This criminal petition is accordingly disposed of at the admission stage. _____________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J. July 18, 2011. *BVS