IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.244 OF 2010 BETWEEN: M/s. I.K.F. Finance Limited, Vijayawada, rep. by its Director V.G.K. Prasad …. Petitioner AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, through Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another …. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.244 OF 2010 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner – complainant against the order dated 18-12-2009 in Criminal M.P. No.6182 of 2009 in C.C. No.952 of 2008 passed by the learned IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he filed C.C. No.952 of 2008 against the accused, respondent No.2 herein, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 before the learned IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. The accused filed Crl. M.P. No.6182 of 2009 in the said C.C. seeking a direction to the Manager of Coastal Local Area Bank Limited Vijayawada to produce certain documents i.e. (1) Extract of ledger bearing A/c.No.CA-632 from June, 2007 to till date; (2) Extract of ledger bearing A/c.No.Sb/01/00008931 from June, 2007 to till date and also (3) the video clipping records from June, 2007 to till date, to show as to whether he went to the Bank on that particular day. The learned Magistrate vide impugned order directed for production of the extracts and with regard to video clippings there is no positive direction for production of the same. 2. Heard. 3. Granting stay in this revision is not in the interest of the petitioner - complainant, as that would cause delay of disposal of the C.C. As the Books of Account of a concern may reveal the position with regard to transactions and the video clippings, even if produced, cannot be positive proof of presence or absence of any party on any particular day, one may deliberately avoid appearing before the camera, if he had advance intention of avoiding camera. 4. In the circumstances, I see no merit in this revision. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed at the admission stage itself. _____________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J March 11, 2010. KTL