HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3322 OF 2006 DATE:29.12.2009 Between: Smt C.S.Radha Poornima …….Petitioner And: M/s. Bhatia Finance, rep. By its Partner Sri S. Jagat Singh Bhatia and another ……Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3322 OF 2006 ORDER: This petition is filed by the accused/appellant under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure questioning the order dated 04.04.2006 passed by the II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in Criminal M.P.No.1170 of 2006 in Criminal Appeal No.151 of 2005 by which the lower court dismissed the petition filed by the appellant under Section 391/311 Cr.P.C refusing to recall P.W.1 for further cross examination in the appeal. The respondent/complainant filed C.C.No.624 of 1999 in the then XVII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Hyderabad against the petitioner/accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act,1881. After trial, the trial court by the judgment dated 04.03.2005 convicted the petitioner for the said offence and imposed sentence. As against the said conviction and sentence passed by the trial court, the petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No.151 of 2005 in the II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Court, Hyderabad. When the appeal has been pending in the lower appellate court, the petitioner filed the present petition for recalling of P.W.1 for the purpose of further cross examination for putting a suggestion regarding non receipt of statutory notice by the accused. The lower appellate Court came to the conclusion that no such opportunity should be given to the petitioner for recalling P.W.1 because sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner by the trial court for putting forward her defence. The petitioner not only cross examined P.W1 at length during trial but also examined himself as D.W.1. It is not as if the petitioner was prevented from making any such suggestion when P.W.1 was put in box during trial. In those circumstances, the lower court rightly came to the conclusion that the petitioner cannot be permitted to recall P.W.1 for putting further suggestion regarding non receipt of notice. At this stage itself, this Court intends to make it clear that in a criminal case, there is no need or necessity for giving any suggestions to the prosecution witnesses. It is for the prosecution/complainant to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt. Simply because some suggestions are not put to some prosecution witnesses, the defence counsel cannot be shut out from arguing on that aspect. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that there is ambiguity in evidence on the aspect of service of notice. If there is any such ambiguity, then it is for the accused/defence to take advantage of the same and to gain out of such ambiguity. I am sure that no criminal Court would disallow any contention of the defence counsel/appellant’s counsel on mere ground that there was no suggestion made by his counter part in the trial Court when the prosecution witness was in box. In the result, the petition is dismissed. ___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J Date:29.12.2009 Gk. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3322 OF 2006 DATE:29.12.2009 Gk.