THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Revision Case No.1227 of 2009 Dated: 25th August, 2009 Between: V.S.Sundera Babu …Petitioner and The State of A.P., rep. by P.P., High Court of A.P., Hyerabad and another. …Respondents *** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Revision Case No.1227 of 2009 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order dated 13.07.2009 passed in Crl.M.P.No.641 of 2009 in CC No.412 of 2008 on the file of XIV Additional Judge-cum-XVIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, whereby and whereunder the learned Magistrate dismissed the application filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to recall PW.1 for the purpose of further cross-examination. 2. Notice before admission came to be ordered to the second respondent/complainant on 05.08.2009. The petitioner/accused took out notice to the 2nd respondent/complainant by Registered Post with acknowledgment due. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused filed a letter dated 20.08.2009 in the Registry stating that notice has been served on the 2nd respondent/complainant in person. The letter dated 20.08.2009 contains the endorsement as ‘received copy’. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused, the said endorsement is that of the 2nd respondent/complainant. In view of the letter dated 20.08.2009, notice to the 2nd respondent/complainant is deemed to have been served. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/accused and perused the order impugned in the revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/accused submits that the petitioner/accused could not cross-examine PW.1 effectively on certain aspects and therefore, PW.1 is required to be recalled for further cross-examination. He would also contend that the petitioner/accused could not secure the deposition of PW.1 for quite a long time and therefore, he could not move the application to recall PW.1 soon after completion of the evidence of PW.1. 5. I have gone through the petition filed by the petitioner/accused before the trial Court under Section 311 Cr.P.C. The reasons assigned for recall of PW.1 are stated in paras.6 and 7 of the petition, which read as hereunder: “6. It is humbly submitted that as the above mentioned irregularities are there in the above Statement of Account (Ex.P2), the Complainant has fabricated the same and cleverly avoided serving the above Statement to the Accused. 7. It is humbly submit that to elicit such information from the Complainant which is very crucial for proper adjudication of this case and also to bring out real facts concerned this case before this Honourable Court, it is jut and necessary that the PW.1 may be recalled and cross-examined.” The contention advanced by the petitioner/acused that the copy of the deposition was not made available for quite a long time does not find place in the petition filed by him under Section 311 Cr.P.C. before the trial Court. The trial Court, after noticing the deposition of PW.1, recorded a finding that PW.1 has been cross-examined by the accused with regard to Ex.P2 statement of account. The relevant portion of the observation made by the trial Court in the order impugned in the revision reads as hereunder: “7. At the out-set, the respondent/complainant filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination as PW.1 on 10.01.2008, and thereafter on 10.04.2008 Exs.P1 to P11 are marked thereafter from time to time the court has granted time to the petitioner/accused to cross-examine PW.1 in the above CC and at last on 11.09.2008 the petitioner/accused had cross-examined PW.1 in the above CC at length. On 27.02.2009 the petitioner/accused was examined U/S.313 Cr.P.C. and the above case was posted to 03.03.2009 for defence evidence if any. Thereafter on 18.03.2009 the petitioner/accused has come up with this petition to recall PW.1 for further cross- examination with regard to Ex.P2 statement of account filed by the respondent/complainant in the above CC which is highly unwarranted because on perusal of cross-examination of PW.1 in the above CC it is pertinent to note already the petitioner/accused had elicited with regard to Ex.P2 statement in detail and as such the contention of the petitioner in the petition that to elicit information from the respondent/complainant about Ex.P2 statement of account is devoid of merits but on the other hand, the attitude of the petitioner/accused clinchingly go to show that to drag on the proceedings he has come up with the present petition it should not be entertained by the courts. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances, the reasons assigned by the petitioner in the instant petition neither sustainable in law nor on facts, and as a necessary corollary this petition deserves for dismissal in limini.” The trial Court has given cogent and convincing reasons for dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. I do not see any valid ground to interfere with the order impugned in the revision in exercise of powers under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. 6. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed at the admission stage. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:25th August, 2009. cs