HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No:1159 OF 2008 ORDER: The accused, who was tried in C.C.No.13 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mancherial, is the petitioner herein. As his application filed under section 391 Cr.P.C. to permit him to adduce additional evidence to prove the contents of the letter of acknowledgement by the Manager, ING Vyshya Bank, Mancherial Branch, by examining the said Manager, was dismissed, he approached this Court and filed this Revision. It appears that there are many transactions between the parties and in lieu thereof, a cheque was issued by the petitioner to the respondent for an amount of Rs.2,50,000/-. On presentation, it was bounced. The respondent-complainant after following due procedure provided under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act filed a complaint and the same was numbered as C.C.No.13 of 2005. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the petitioner guilty of the said offence and accordingly sentenced him. As against the said judgment, the petitioner filed Crl.A.No.114 of 2007 before the III Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Asifabad. Further, it appears that during the course of evidence in the trial Court, the petitioner-accused, who was examined as D.W.1, got Exs.D1 and D2 marked. As the said documents are not proved, the trial Court has not taken them into consideration and recorded conviction. As the said documents are required to be proved in the appeal preferred by him, the petitioner filed the present application with the prayer as stated supra. Heard. No doubt, there are lapses on the part of the petitioner in not getting the banker examined during the course of trial. But it shall be remembered that the documents, which the petitioner wants to prove by examining the banker, were already marked and it is not as though the said documents are brought on record at a later stage. It is not known as to why the petitioner has chosen to get the documents marked as Exs.D1 and D2 without any proof. He should have taken steps at the earliest point of time i.e., at the time of getting those documents marked. It is common parlance that unless and until the author of a document is examined to prove the contents of the said documents, even if it is marked, the same cannot be treated as evidence. As stated supra, as the said documents were already marked, in my considered view, the petitioner can be afforded an opportunity to summon the said Banker to prove the contents of the documents already marked as Exs.D1 and D2. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the order impugned herein is set aside. ___________________________ Justice Gopala Krishna Tamada Dated: 8.2.2011 Nn HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No:1159 OF 2008 8.2.2011