HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4226 of 2009 Dated 28-10-2010 Between: Mundru Rama Rao. …Petitioner. And: Gangavarapu Uday Bhaskar and another. …Respondents. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4226 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner/accused is accused of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in S.T.C.No.9 of 2008 on the file of 1st Additional Judicial Magistrate of the 1st Class, Khammam. He filed Crl.M.P.No.940 of 2009 in the lower Court under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to reopen his examination-in- chief as D.W.1 in order to mark two documents namely complaint filed before and order passed by the Disciplinary Committee No.IV, Bar Council of State of Andhra Pradesh against the respondent/complainant. The said petition was dismissed by the lower Court. Questioning the same, the petitioner filed this petition. 2. The respondent/Complainant was an advocate. It is his contention that the he lent money to the accused who in partial discharge of the said debt gave a cheque which was later dishonoured by his banker when the complainant presented the same for encashment. The lower Court negatived the petitioner’s petition on the ground that the proposed documents are not connected to the present case and are not relevant to decide the present case. Irrespective of stage of the case in the lower Court, the Magistrate is obliged to consider an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. in case it is essential in the interest of justice. According to the petitioner, the two proposed documents which are certified copies, are sought to be filed with a view to demonstrate modus operandi of the respondent who was an advocate about his alleged habit of obtaining pronotes and cheques from his clients. According to the petitioner, the respondent was the petitioner’s family counsel and the respondent was advocate for the petitioner’s wife in one case. Having regard to the contention of the accused that the respondent obtained the cheque and the pronote during the course of his dealings as advocate, conduct of the respondent as advocate is relevant in this case. Though the proposed documents do not relate to the facts in the present case but relate to the respondent’s dealings with other clients, the petitioner intended to bring them on record to show conduct of the respondent as advocate in dealing with his clients. Having regard to the said plea taken by the accused, it cannot be said that the two proposed documents are wholly irrelevant for the purpose of decision in the pending case before the Magistrate. I do not propose to deal with relevancy of the documents under Sections 8, 146 and 155 of the Evidence Act in this Criminal Petition and it is for the lower Court to look into those provisions while deciding relevancy and reliability of the proposed documents, after recording the entire evidence. In that view of the matter, this Court finds that the order passed by the lower Court is not sustainable in law. 3. In the result, the Criminal petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order dated 15-6-2009 in Crl.M.P.No.940 of 2009 of the lower Court and directing the lower Court to mark proposed documents after recalling the petitioner as D.W.1. __________________________________________ Justice SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU Dated 28-10-2010. Dvs HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4226 of 2009 Dated 28-10-2010