HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.10472 of 2009 O R D E R: The petitioner/appellant/accused questions order dated 19.11.2009 passed by the VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Guntur in Crl.M.P.No.19 of 2009 in C.A.No.376 of 2008, by which the lower Court dismissed that petition refusing to receive additional evidence in the appeal. The additional evidence sought to be let in by the petitioner in the lower appellate Court is by way of filing certified copy of complaint in C.C.No.290 of 2008 on the file of IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Guntur relating to a case filed by one Dhanunjaya Rao against the petitioner’s father alleging offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 (in short, the Act). The petitioner was convicted by the trial Court for the offence under Section 138 of the Act. It is defence of the petitioner/accused that his father borrowed certain amount from Dhanunjaya Rao who obtained one blank promissory note and one blank cheque from the accused and one blank promissory note and three blank cheques from his father and that the said Dhanunjaya Rao utilized services of the first respondent/complainant and got a case filed against the petitioner in the trial Court. In this case relating to promissory note and cheque standing in the name of the accused, proceedings relating to C.C.No.290 of 2008 filed by Dhanunjaya Rao against the petitioner’s father have absolutely no relevance. That fact is not going to prove that Dhanunjaya Rao obtained blank promissory note and blank cheque from the accused/petitioner. At best, copy of complaint in C.C.No.290 of 2008 may show that the petitioner’s father obtained loan from Dhanunjaya Rao and executed a promissory note and a cheque. It will not throw any light whatsoever on the defence of the petitioner/accused in the present proceedings. Therefore, the lower appellate Court rightly came to the conclusion that the proposed document will not substantiate the petitioner’s contentions and that it will not enable the Court to give a finding. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. Hence, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. ________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J 28th September, 2010. PNV