THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA CRL. R.C.No. 1649 of 2005. ORDER: Though the matter is listed under interlocutory caption, the main criminal revision case is heard finally along with miscellaneous petitions and the main revision case itself is disposed of in view of the fact that the trial in S.C.No. 505 of 2003 is held up due to the interim stay granted by this Court. This Crl. R.C. is filled against the order dt. 5.9.2005 in Crl.M.P.No. 381 of 2005 in S.C.No. 505 of 2003 on the file of the learned VII Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge for trial of Communal Offences, Hyderabad whereby the learned VII Addl. Metropolitan Sessions dismissed the petition filed under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act by the petitioner seeking a direction to the officials of the Police Station, Abids to produce entire record relating to the criminal cases pending against the petitioner as well as the Audio and Video C.Ds pertaining to the interview of the then Deputy Commissioner of Police, Central Zone, Hyderabad Sri. C.V. Anand with the de facto complainant Smt. Latha Jain telecast in TV-9 on 8.3.2004. In the petition in Crl.M.P.No. 381 of 2005, the petitioner stated that the then Deputy Commissioner of Police Sri.C.V. Anand along with the de facto complainant Smt. Latha Jain, on the eve of Women’s day, gave an interview in which it was stated that eight cases are booked against the petitioner and some cases are yet to be registered and the investigation was under progress in registered cases and a rowdy sheet was opened as per the Police Standing Order No. 740. It is further stated that though the petitioner issued a notice to the said Deputy Commissioner of police to furnish the particulars of pending cases so as to enable the petitioner to take further steps in the matter, no particulars are furnished and in the circumstances, he filed the said petition. The respondent/State of A.P. through P.S. Abids filed counter stating that the particulars regarding the cases pending against the petitioner/accused and the alleged interview of C.V.Anand, the then Deputy Commissioner of Police with the de facto complainant Smt. Latha Jain are not necessary for deciding the case in S.No. 505 of 2005 and the petitioner has been filing petition after petition only to drag on the proceedings and therefore it is prayed to dismiss the petition. The learned VII Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner by the order dt. 5.9.2005. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision case is filed by the petitioner/accused. Heard Laxmi Nivas Agarwal, Party-in-person and the learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent. The case of the prosecution is that on 30.7.2003 at about 3.15 p.m. while the de facto complainant Smt. Latha Jain was climbing the stair case at Khan Lateef Khan building near L.B. Stadium, the petitioner/accused pulled her hand and put his hand on her chest and on raising hue and cry, the passers-by came and rescued the de facto complainant and on the complaint lodged by her, a case in Cr.No. 270 of 2003 under Section 354 IPC was registered against the petitioner/accused and same was committed to the Court of Sessions by the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate in the concerned PRC on his file and it is numbered as S.C.No. 505 of 2003. The prosecution examined Pws 1 to 7 in the case and while so the petitioner filed a petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. praying to recall Pws 1 to 4 and 7 for further cross examination in Crl.M.P.No. 309 of 2005 and the said petition was dismissed and as against the said order, the petitioner filed a revision case before the High Court and the same is pending. While such revision case is pending before the High Court, the petitioner filed the present petition before the trial court seeking to call for the particulars with regard to the cases pending against him and the interview of the Deputy Commissioner of Police with the de facto complainant telecasted on 8.3.2004 in TV-9. The petitioner also filed W.P.No. 4589 of 2004 for the same relief as sought in Crl.M.P.No. 381 of 2005. The trial court held that the particulars with regard to the criminal cases pending against the petitioner and the interview of the then Deputy Commissioner of police with the de facto complainant telecasted on 8.3.2004 in TV- 9 is not relevant for the purpose of appreciating the evidence on record. The trial court also held that the petitioner has been filing petition after petition only to drag on the proceedings and finally the trial court held that the petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable and the same is filed only to drag on the proceedings and dismissed the same. A perusal of the order under revision would go to show that the learned VII Metropolitan Sessions Judge while dismissing the petition gave cogent and convincing reasons and also recorded a finding that the attitude of the petitioner in filing petition after petition before the trial court and also before the High Court indicates that he intends to drag on the proceedings in one way or the other, which is not in the interest of justice. The reasoning adopted by the learned VII Metropolitan Sessions Judge in dismissing the petition does not suffer from any error or irregularity much less any illegality warranting interference from this revisional court. In the circumstances, this revisional court is the view that there are no merits in the revision petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the revision petition is dismissed. __________________ B.N.Rao Nalla,J -01-2010. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA CRL. R.C.No. 1649 of 2005. -01-2010.