HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY Crl.R.C.No. 1519 of 2009 O R D E R: This Revision is directed against the order, dated 02.09.2009 passed in Crl.M.P.No. 766 of 2009 in Criminal Appeal No. 68 of 2008 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Nizamabad whereby and whereunder the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the Application filed by the petitioner under Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the order impugned in the Revision and also the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the husband of the complainant filed O.S. No. 276 of 2008 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad, after the disposal of the C.C. No. 576 of 2006 and therefore, the plaint copy in the said suit is essential to strengthen the defence pleaded by the petitioner. A further submission has been made that the Appellate Court dismissed the Application, without assigning any valid reasons. I have gone through the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Paragraphs 36 and 37 of the Petition read as hereunder: “ 36. It is submitted that the husband of the respondent/complainant filed two civil cases basing on the two cheques and promotes obtained by force in his favour from the petitioner/accused bearing O.S.No(s) 276/2008 and 268/2008 on the file of the Hon’ble Court of Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad. It is submitted that though petitioner/accused filed chief examination of D.W.3(scribe) of the three pronotes and cheques, he was not allowed by the respondent/complainant to depose the real facts and as such his chief examination was not taken into consideration as he did not turn up to face the cross- examination at the instance of the respondent/complainant and her husband. It is submitted that due to above bonafide and inevitable reasons the petitioner/accused could not able to lead the said evidence and the same was beyond his control. 37. It is submitted that the petitioner/accused obtained copy of the third pronote and filing the same in this case. It is submitted that in the above stated facts and circumstances, it is just and expedient to permit the petitioner/accused herein to lead additional evidence in this appeal by filing the pronote dated 20.12.2005 alleged to have been executed by the petitioner/accused in favour of the husband of the respondent/complainant and c.c. of plaint in O.S.No. 276 of 2008 it is just and expedient to recall D.W.3 to give evidence in the case as additional evidence in this appeal.” Indisputably, the evidence of D.W.3 came to be eschewed because of his failure to turn up for cross-examination. Issuance of three cheques is admitted by the petitioner/accused, of course he pleaded that the three cheques have been obtained from him by putting him under threat. He also does not dispute the fact of his executing three pronotes, of course once again he pleaded that the pronotes were obtained from him under threat. Such is the defence pleaded by the petitioner/accused, subsequent filing of the suit basing on one of the pronotes is not relevant for the disposal of the Criminal Appeal No. 68 of 2008. Therefore, I do not see any valid ground to interfere with the order impugned in the Revision. The Criminal Revision Case is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage. ------------------------------------ (B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J) 15th September 2009 ksld