IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1032 of 2010 DATE: 15.06.2010 Between: Dr.A.Murali Krishna Prasad …… Petitioner/Accused And State Bank of Hyderabad, And another. …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1032 of 2010 ORDER: The accused/petitioner questions order dated 24.02.2010 of the XIX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in Crl.M.P.No.1078 of 2010 in C.C. No.259 of 2009 by which the lower Court allowed the petition filed by the complainant and received one document filed by the complainant. Case in the lower Court is one relating to offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act filed by the 1st respondent/complainant which is State Bank of Hyderabad. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that nothing prevented the complainant to file the document along with the complaint and that permitting the complainant to file a fresh document is not warranted by law. 2) The complainant has filed three cases against the accused for similar offences under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. They are C.C. Nos.259 of 2009, 258 of 2009 and 251 of 2009. According to the complainant, the accused obtained three separate loans from the complainant-Bank and issued cheques for repayment of instalments and those cheques were dishonoured. When P.W-1 was examined Ex.P-10 was marked as personal loan agreement of the accused. Ex.P-10 is not personal loan agreement, but is educational loan agreement. Because of three cases between the same parties, according to the complainant, due to inadvertence and over sight one extraneous document was marked instead of the crucial document relating to this loan. It made the complainant to file the present petition in the lower Court. Having regard to facts and circumstances of the case, the lower Court rightly received the document filed along with the petition, as it is the relevant document and in the interest of justice. I see no illegality or irregularity or impropriety in the order passed by the lower Court. 3) Hence, the Revision petition is dismissed. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J June 15, 2010 ksh