THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos.1350 & 1351 of 2011 COMMON ORDER: The petitioner in both these revisions is same and the question involved in both these revisions is same, therefore, both these revisions are being disposed of by this common order. Brief facts of the case are as follows: The petitioner faced trial in C.C.Nos.731 & 732 of 2009, for the oﬀence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. During pendency of these cases, the petitioner ﬁled Crl.M.P.No.3542 of 2010 in C.C.No.731 of 2009 and Crl.M.P.No.3541 of 2010 in C.C.No.732 of 2009 before the trial Court to recall PW.1 for further cross-examination of PW.1. However, the trial Court dismissed the said applications vide separate orders dated 01.07.2010. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred Crl.R.C.Sr.Nos.4272 and 4273 of 2010 before the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, and the same were dismissed vide separate orders dated 21.07.2010. Challenging the same, the petitioner ﬁled Criminal Petition Nos.7511 & 7510 of 2010 before this Court. But, during pendency of these criminal petitions, the trial Court passed judgment in C.C.Nos.731 & 732 of 2009 convicting the petitioner. In view of the same, this Court disposed of Crl.P.Nos.7511 & 7510 of 2010 vide separate orders dated 06.08.2010 giving liberty to the petitioner to ﬁle an application before the competent Court. Questioning the judgment passed by the trial Court in C.C.Nos.731 & 732, the petitioner ﬁled respective Criminal Appeal Nos.288 & 289 of 2010 before I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. Pending these appeals, the petitioner ﬁled Crl.M.P.No.205 of 2011 in Crl.A.No.288 of 2010 and Crl.M.P.No.206 of 2011 in Crl.A.No.289 of 2010 before the lower appellate Court, requesting the Court to permit the petitioner to cross-examine PW.1 by recalling him at the appellate stage, and the lower appellate court dismissed the same vide separate orders dated 13.06.2011. Assailing the order dated 13.06.2011 passed in Crl.M.P.No.205 of 2011 in Criminal Appeal No.288 of 2010, the present Criminal Revision Case No.1350 of 2011 is ﬁled, whereas against the order dated 13.06.2011 passed in Crl.M.P.No.206 of 2011 in Criminal Appeal No.289 of 2010, the present Criminal Revision Case No.1351 of 2011 is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the only point that has to be clariﬁed by way of cross-examination of PW.1 is as to which complaint the demand draft in question pertains. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the view that an opportunity can be given to the petitioner to cross-examine PW.1 on certain conditions. Accordingly, these criminal revision cases are disposed of with a direction to the lower appellate Court to give one opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine PW.1 on the following conditions: 1. The petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.1,000/-, in each case, towards costs to the witness concerned. 2. The petitioner shall conﬁne his cross- examination in connection with the demand draft, which is in question in both the complaints. 3. The petitioner shall examine the witness on the date of hearing to be ﬁxed by the lower appellate court. 4. If the petitioner fails to cross-examine the witness on the date of hearing to be ﬁxed by the lower appellate court, the lower appellate court is at liberty to proceed further in the matters in accordance with law. ____________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO 23.11.2011 v v