THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1207 OF 2010. Dated:02.07.2010 Between: P.Krishna ....Petitioner/Accused And State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another. .... Respondents ORDER: The accused questions order dated 10-05-2010, passed by the VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in Crl.M.P.No.1952 of 2010 in C.C.No.766 of 2008 by which the lower Court dismissed petition filed by the accused under Section 311 Cr.P.C. refusing to recall P.W.1 for further cross-examination. 2. It is stated that the matter is now at fag end of trial. P.W.1 was already cross-examined at length previously. The accused wants to confront certain previous Court records relating to similar cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short, the Act), filed by the complainant against others, in order to establish conduct of the complainant. Filing of several cases under Section 138 of the Act against others, is no sin. In any event, the accused could have filed all the said documents in his evidence when he examined himself in the lower Court. Secondly, to prove wrong address on notice cover addressed to the accused, there is no need for confronting electricity bill or telephone bill of the accused to the complainant-P.W.1. The accused could have marked the said bill when he was examined in the lower Court. The alleged tampering of date in the cheque is a matter for scrutiny by the lower Court at the time of arguments and disposal of the case. The lower Court rightly observed that the accused has come up with the present petition for recalling P.W.1 at fag end of trial with a view to drag on the proceedings. This Court finds no merits as well as bona fides, either in the petition filed before the lower Court or in this revision petition. 3. Hence, the Revision Petition is dismissed. _​__________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J 02nd July, 2010 Tsy