THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1495 of 2009 ORDER: This revision has been directed against the order dated 04.08.2008 passed in Crl.MP.SR.No.144 of 2009 in Crl.A.No.80 of 2008 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), at Medak, Medak District. The background facts of the case in a nut shell leading to filing of this revision by the accused/appellant in Crl.A.No.80 of 2008 are that the petitioner faced trial in C.C.No.81 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Medak, for the offence punishable under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 {IPC}. The learned Magistrate, on full-fledged trial, came to the conclusion that the prosecution made out the charge levelled against the petitioner for the offence under Section 409 IPC and convicted him, accordingly, by judgment dated 29.10.2008. Assailing the judgment of conviction and sentence, the petitioner filed Crl.A.No.80 of 2008 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), at MedaK, Medak District. Pending the appeal, he filed application under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 {Cr.PC.}, with a prayer to summon the Commissioner, Municipality, Medak, to produce Challan Nos.559, 560 dated 15.10.2001, Nos.617, 618 dated 16.10.2001, Nos.557, 558 dated 12.10.2001 and No.81 dated 12.10.2001 and the Director of Municipal Administration, Hyderabad, to produce Acquittance Register for the year 2001 for proper adjudication of the case. The learned Additional Sessions Judge returned the petition with the following endorsement. “How this petition is maintainable in the appellate Court.” The said endorsement is challenged in this revision. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the documents, which are sought to be summoned, are essential to prove the innocence of the accused for the offences with which he stands convicted. Section 391 Cr.PC., is the provision, which enables the appellate Court to take further evidence or directed to be taken. The petitioner, without making a request to the appellate Court to invoke jurisdiction under Section 391 Cr.PC., straight away filed petition under Section 91 Cr.PC., to summon the documents stated above. Unless the Court permits the petitioner to adduce additional evidence, the question of issuing summons to the persons stated above does not arise. Therefore, the return endorsement on Crl.MP.SR.No.144 of 2009 made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge does not warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of powers under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.PC. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _______________________ (B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J) 10th September 2009 Note: CC by tomorrow B/o RRB