THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1622 OF 2009 ORDER: 1 This revision is directed against the order dated 27.02.2009 made in I.A.No.975 of 2008 in A.S.No.58 of 2008 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Mahaboobnagar, whereby the court below refused to accept and receive the copies of the judgments of this court in Crl.A.No.829, 830 and 831 of 2001 and also depositions of PW.3 in C.C.Nos.266 of 2000, 267 of 2000 and 265 of 2002 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Mahaboobnagar. 2 Brief facts are that there were certain transactions between the petitioner and the respondent and in that regard a promissory note has been executed and similarly a cheque was also issued. On presentation of the said cheque when it bounced, the respondent herein filed a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. On the foot of the said promissory note a suit has been instituted by the respondent herein for realisation of the said amount. It appears the criminal court having examined some witnesses and marking certain documents came to the conclusion that the petitioner is not guilty of the said offence punishable under section 138 of the N.I. Act for which he was tried and accordingly acquitted him. In the light of the above, the defendant / petitioner wanted the said judgment and depositions in the said C.C to be marked as exhibits in the civil suit and in that context he approached the court below and filed the present application I.A.975 of 2009 under Order 41 Rule 27 r/w 151 of CPC and as stated supra, the court below dismissed the said application. Hence the present revision. 3 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4 It is true that the judgment of a criminal court is not binding in a suit as they are entirely distinct and different. In civil matters decisions have to be taken on preponderance of probabilities whereas in criminal cases proof is required beyond reasonable doubt. But, on that ground in my considered view, the court ought not to have refused to receive the said documents. The court below ought to have accepted the said documents and given a finding stating that the same is irrelevant for the purpose of deciding the said suit. In fact, Order 41 Rule 27 CPC deals with production of additional evidence in appellate court. At the threshold in my considered view, the court cannot say that the said evidence or judgment in the criminal case cannot be accepted. It should have accepted the same into evidence and thereafter given a finding thereon. 5 Accordingly this revision is allowed. The order impugned in this revision is set aside and the court below is hereby directed to accept and receive the copies of the judgments of the criminal court in Crl.A.No.829, 830 and 831 of 2001 and also depositions of PW.3 in C.C.Nos.266 of 2000, 267 of 2000 and 265 of 2002 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Mahaboobnagar and proceed in accordance with law. No order as to costs. -------------- 30.07.2010 Kvsn