THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY THURSDAY THIS THE SIXTH AUGUST TWO THOUSAND NINE CRL.R.C.No. 1309 of 2009 Between:- Swamiji Mills Ltd., Rep. By its Managing Director, A. Brahmaraj and Others. ...Petitioners A N D The State of A.P. Rep. By Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad and another ...Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CRL.R.C.No. 1309 of 2009 JUDGMENT: This revision is directed against the order, dated 8-7-2009 passed in Crl.M.P.No. 3188 of 2009 in C.C.No. 23 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur whereby and where under the learned Judge allowed the application filed by the defacto complainant under Section 311 Cr.P.C. 2. The petitioners are accused and the respondent No.2 is the complainant in C.C.No.23 of 2007. It is a case under Negotiable Instruments Act. The complainant examined himself as PW-1. Thereafter, he filed Crl.M.P.No. 3188 of 2009 to reopen the case for his evidence for marking partnership deed, dated 21-10-1992. The petitioners resisted the said application. Learned Junior Civil Judge on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties proceeded to allow the application by order dated 8-7-2009. The order passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge reads as here under. 3. "Heard. For the reasons stated in the petitin, coupled with submisions made, in theinterests of justice this Court feels that this petition has merits. Accordingly, the evidence of PW-1 is reopened to mark the said document i.e., partnership deed dated 21-10-1992 as the proposed document is not a new document said to be introduced for the purpose of this case afresh by the complainant". 4. Assailing the said order, the accused filed this revision. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and perused the order impugned. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the document sought to be marked cannot be admitted in evidence as the same is not properly certified. ...2... 6. The question of admissibility of the document cannot be decided at this stage. The petitioner is at liberty to raise objections with regard to the admissibility of the document, when it is tendered through the evidence of PW-1. 7. With regard to reopening the evidence of PW-1 for the purpose of marking the Partnership deed, the petitioner cannot have any valid objection. The trial Court considering the material brought on record in right perspective allowed the application filed by the complainant under Section 311 Cr.P.C. 8. I do not see any valid ground to interfere with the order impugned in this revision. 9. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed at the admission stage. _______________________________ Justice B. Seshasayana Reddy 6th August,2009. Note: C.C.in three days B/o KM THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CRL.R.C.No. 1309 of 2009 6th August, 2009.