HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Crl.R.C.No. 629 of 2009 Dated: 28-01-2010 Between M/s. Communication shopees .... Petitioner And Bhanu Vijay B. and another .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Crl.R.C.No. 629 of 2009 ORDER: This Revision Case has been filed against the order, dated 27- 02-2009 in Crl.M.P.No.122 of 2009 in C.C.No.1087 of 2008 on the file of the XVI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the lower Court failed to consider that the petitioner filed an Application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., after his cross-examination, seeking to recall him only with regard to the documents that were referred in the cross-examination and to mark those documents. A perusal of the cross-examination of PW-1 shows that he was cross-examined to show that he has not filed any documents to show that he is the authorized representative of the complainant firm. To this question, the petitioner answered that he is having documents to show that he is a partner of the complainant firm and similarly he has also admitted that he could not produce invoices and purchase orders and immediately he has replied that he is having the documents of invoices. Thus the petitioner (PW-1) wanted to recall himself and mark further documents. It is true that these documents were not filed along with the complaint. It also appears that PW-1 has not referred to these documents in his chief examination. Of course the petitioner ought to have filed all these documents along with the complaint and ought to have referred to these documents in his chief examination. But, at the time of adducing evidence, the trial Courts should not close the doors unless it appears that the petition filed by the petitioner is vexatious or filed with an intention to protract the litigation. At the time of trial, either the defacto complainant or the accused should be given reasonable opportunity to put forth their case and to adduce evidence, and the Court, in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act, may receive the same. In view of the above discussion, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. Consequently Crl.M.P.No.122 of 2009 stands allowed. __________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J Date: 28-01-2010 YCR