HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA Crl.R.C. Nos. 2163 and 2164 of 2009 DATED: 07.02.2011 Between: T. Vijaya Kumari .. Petitioner And 1. G.Govinda Rao 2. The State of A.P. through Public Prosecutor, A.P., High Court .. Respondents JUDGMENT:- Inasmuch as these two Criminal Revision Cases arise out of the same Common Order dated 25.11.2009 made in Crl.M.P. Nos.433 and 434 of 2009 in Crl.A. No. 321 of 2009, and the parties are one and the same, both the cases are taken up together for disposal by this common judgment. While Crl.R.C.No.2163 of 2009 is directed against the common order dated 25.11.2009 passed in Crl.M.P.No.433 of 2009 in Crl.A.No.321 of 2009 by the learned II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, the other Crl.R.C. No. 2164 of 2009 is directed against the common order dated 25.11.2009 passed in Crl.M.P. No.434 of 2009 in Crl.A.No. 321 of 2009 whereby the application filed under Section 311 read with Section 391 Cr.P.C. to recall PW1 for further cross-examination and another application filed under Section 391 Cr.P.C. to receive the documents through PW1 during further cross-examination, were dismissed. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent herein filed a private complaint alleging that the petitioner herein committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the same was numbered as C.C. No. 448 of 2005 on the file of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Hyderabad, and subsequently, it was transferred to the trial Court and renumbered as C.C. No. 22 of 2008. The trial Court, after recording evidence, held that the petitioner was guilty of the alleged offence and sentenced him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of four months and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for two weeks, vide its judgment dated 09.09.2009. Questioning this judgment the petitioner filed Crl.A. No. 321 of 2009 before II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, and during pendency of this appeal, the petitioner filed the present two applications, and as stated supra, they were dismissed. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the documents sought to be marked by the petitioner have relevance to establish that there are civil transactions between the parties and the cheque in question was never issued by the petitioner in lieu of a legally enforceable debt, as such, these documents are very crucial to prove his case, and the Court below ought to have received and marked these documents and permitted the petitioner to lead further evidence. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the documents sought to be received and marked as additional evidence have no relevancy at all and they have been filed at a very belated stage. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material placed on record. Apparently, a private complaint was filed in the year 2005, which was numbered as C.C. No. 448 of 2005 and the judgment was pronounced on 09.09.2009 i.e. after a lapse of about four years, but no plausible explanation has been offered by the petitioner in not bringing the documents on record during the period of these four years. It is only after Crl.A.No. 321 of 2009 was filed, the documents are sought to be received as additional evidence. It is not as though the documents were not in existence at the time when the complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act was filed. If really the documents are germane, the petitioner would have definitely filed them during the course of trial itself. The documents, which are sought to be received and marked as additional evidence, are agreement of sale dated 08.03.2004, legal notice and rental deed. From a perusal of the judgment dated 09.09.2009 delivered in C.C. No. 28 of 2008, it is obvious that the agreement of sale was already marked as Ex.D1. For the forgoing reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has not approached the lower appellate Court with clean hands, and the impugned common order dated 25.11.2009 is perfectly justified and does not warrant any interference by this Court. Hence, these Criminal Revision Cases fail, and are, accordingly, dismissed. ______________ 07.02.2011 bcj