THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CRL.R.C.NO.2170 OF 2010 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 1-11-2010 passed in Crl.M.P.No.7670 of 2010 in C.C.No.327 of 2009 on the file of XIX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad whereby and whereunder the learned Additional Metropolitan Magistrate dismissed the application filed by the accused under Section 311 Cr.P.C to recall PW1 for further cross-examination. The petitioner is facing prosecution for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. The complainant adduced evidence on his behalf. The petitioner/accused filed Crl.M.P.No.1691 of 2010 to re-call PW1 for further cross- examination. The said application ended in dismissal. Thereafter, the petitioner filed another application being Crl.M.P.No.7670 of 2010 when the case came up for arguments. The learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate taking into consideration of the fact of dismissal of earlier application proceeded to dismiss the present application also by order dated 1-11-2010. The relevant portion of the order reads as hereunder: “Now the accused came up with present application to recall PW1for further cross examination. The record discloses that the accused filed a criminal M.P.NO.1691 of 2010 for recalling of PW1 earlier. The said application was filed on the ground that the counsel missed some important aspects at the earlier cross-examination. This Court dismissed the said application with a finding that the petition did not disclose the said important aspects and that the petition was filed on the vague ground. The accused did not file any revision on the said application. The said application was dismissed on 9-4- 2010. Since then the accused did not challenge the said orders and in fact after closing the complainant side evidence the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., given much time for defence evidence and ultimately closed the defence also and the case is posted for arguments. The counsel for the complainant submitted his arguments on 22-6- 2010. Now the accused has come up with very same application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C, on the ground that the earlier counsel failed to elicit important aspects. This application also does not disclose the missing links, which are really necessary. The application is vague. The petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.” Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent- State. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the petitioner is not required to divulge his defence and that the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C is necessitated because of earlier counsel appeared on his behalf failed to put some pertinent questions to PW1 in cross examination. Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submits that when the case came up for arguments, the petitioner filed a petition to adduce defence evidence and the said petition came to be allowed on payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- and the petitioner assailed the order passed in the said application by filing revision being Crl.R.C.No.1567 of 2010. Initially stay was granted and subsequently, the said application ended in dismissal. Even then, the petitioner did not choose to adduce evidence and subsequently, the trial Court took up the matter for arguments and the respondent-complainant submitted his arguments and at that stage, the petitioner-accused filed application under Section 313 CrPC to recall PW1. It is a matter of record that the petitioner earlier filed Crl.M.P.No.1691 of 2010 to recall PW1 on the self same ground that the said application ended in dismissal and the same reached finality. The trial Court has considered the material brought on record in right perspective and proceeded to dismiss the application. I do not find any illegality or irregularity warranting interference of this Court. In the result, the criminal revision case is dismissed at the admission stage. ___________________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY,J rkk Dated: 1-12-2010 Note: Issue CC by three days.