HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRL.R.C.No. 928 of 2010 O R D E R: Aggrieved by order dated 20-04-2010 in Crl.M.P. No. 518 of 2009 in CC No. 371 of 2009 of the Special Mobile Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kakinada, the accused filed this revision petition. In cause title of this revision petition, he was wrongly described as complainant. The petitioner is accused of offence punishable U/Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. It is stated that trial of the case was completed and the case was coming up for arguments before the lower court. At that stage, the 1st respondent /complainant filed the present petition in the lower court under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for receiving two documents namely – 1. Memo of grounds in A.S.No. 288 of 2009 filed by himself against decree of dismissal of the suit relating to the antecedent debt of the cheque and 2. Certified copy of deposition of the accused as D.W.1 in OS No. 480 of 2008 which was the suit dismissed on merits. 2. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that marking of previous deposition of the accused as DW.1 in OS No. 480 of 2008 is not legal, as it was not confronted to him in the present case. The question of confronting previous evidence to the accused arises in case he goes into the box as defence witness. In this matter, the accused did not go into the box and did not give oral evidence. This court is of the opinion that the question of confronting previous deposition arises only in case the previous deposition is intended to be used for contradicting evidence of the same person in the present proceedings. Since in the present proceedings the accused did not choose to give evidence, his previous deposition cannot be used for the purpose of contradicting his statement, which is non-existent in this case. At the same time, previous deposition of the accused in civil matter can be used in subsequent proceedings for the limited purpose in case the previous deposition contains any admission as such with regard to subject matter of the present case. Admission is different from contradiction of evidence in subsequent proceedings. Even though the accused has not examined himself in subsequent proceedings i.e., in the criminal case, his previous deposition can be used for the limited purpose of using any explicit admission as such contained therein and not for any other purpose. 3. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that marking of deposition of the accused in previous civil matter in this criminal case, is violative of Art. 20(3) of the Constitution of India. Art. 20(3) of the Constitution reads as follows: “No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.” 4. In this case, the accused is not at all compelled to be a witness against himself. The lower court did not compel him to be examined as court witness. There is absolutely no compulsion for the accused in the criminal case to be a witness against himself. Even though his previous deposition in civil suit is marked, he was not compelled to give evidence in the criminal case for the purpose of confronting his previous deposition. Therefore, it cannot be said that the accused was compelled to be a witness against himself. Nobody compelled him to be a witness in the previous civil suit. This court is of the opinion that argument of the petitioner’s counsel in this regard is far fetched. If this argument is further stretched forward, then the accused is going to say that the cheque containing his signature cannot be marked against him as it is violative of Art. 20(3) of the Constitution of India. Every piece of evidence which is against the accused and which is going incriminate him for the offence alleged in the present case, are all relevant pieces of evidence and they are liable to be marked under the provisions of the Evidence Act. I absolutely see no merits in this revision petition. 5. In the result, the revision petition is dismissed. ____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J 18-06-2010 Mjl/* HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRL.R.C.No. 928 of 2010 Dated: 18-06-2010 Mjl/*