HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.3366 and 3367 of 2011 COMMON ORDER:- The point involved in these two petitions which are filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C) and the parties are same and therefore they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Before the point is stated, the circumstances which led to the filing of these two petitions should be noted and for convenience I shall refer to the parties as they are arrayed in Crl.P.No.3316 of 2011. 3. The second respondent namely M/s.Biomen Singapore Private Limited in each of these two petitions filed C.C.No.105/2009 and C.C.No.284/2009 in the Court of XX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad (trial Court) against the petitioners in both these petitions alleging against them an offence of cheque bouncing punishable under Section 138 r/w Sec.142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short Act). C.C.No.105/2009 pertains to two cheques and C.C.No.284/2009 pertains to four cheques. The controversy in both the cases is that the second respondent deals in poultry fields and the petitioners herein having accepted to be the distributor for the second respondent’s products received the said products and issued certain cheques towards outstanding dues and those cheques were dishonoured. The plea of the petitioners/accused is nothing is due from them to the second respondent. The first petitioner is a private limited company and petitioners 2 and 3 who are also shown as A1 to A3 in each case are said to be connected with and in-charge of the business of the first petitioner. The other details are not necessary. 4. The point that arises for determination in these two petitions is whether the petitioners can be permitted to recall PW.1 in each of the cases as requested by them for confronting him with cheques concerned in the other. 5. The trial commenced in both the cases and it is seen from the material papers filed by petitioners that PW.1 was examined in each case. Thereafter the petitioners filed Crl.M.P.No.1036/2011 in C.C.No.105/2009 for recalling PW.1 therein in order to confront him with certain cheques said to have been issued by petitioners and which are mentioned in C.C.No.284/2009. Similarly petitioners/accused filed Crl.M.P.No.1037/2011 in C.C.No.284/2009 for recalling PW.1 therein to confront him with certain cheques issued in C.C.No.105/2009. 6. The trial Court after a contest dismissed both Crl.M.P.No.1036/2011 and Crl.M.P.No.1037/2011 by its separate orders dated 09.03.2011 and assailing the same petitioners filed Crl.P.No.3366 of 2011 and Crl.M.P.No.1037/2011 respectively. At the stage of admission itself the learned counsel for the petitioners was requested to file copies of the depositions of PW.1 in each case to examine the matter and he accordingly filed the same and thereafter the matter was heard at length. 7. The plea of petitioners which is reiterated in these petitions is that recall of PW.1 in both the cases is necessary for the purpose of enabling them to further cross-examine him with reference to the cheques and certain other documents in each case with regard to their defence in the other case and therefore the trial Court committed an error in rejecting their petitions. 8. The trial Court in each of its impugned orders has recorded that the learned counsel for the second respondent i.e. complainant has admitted across the Bar that the second respondent has admitted the issuance of the cheques concerned in both the cases and also the other cheques issued by the petitioners and therefore the recall of PW.1 is not necessary. The trial Court has also recorded in the impugned order that the learned counsel for the accused has also fairly reported that the he already questioned P.W1 about the filing of the connected matter i.e. about the other case in each of the cases. It has also further recorded that the learned counsel for the complainant represented that the complainant is not disputing the factum of issuance of cheques covered by letters addressed by the complainant to the accused. It has further recorded that both the Crl.M.Ps were filed at the stage of arguments and the petitioners filed those petitions only for dragging on the matter and made that circumstance also a ground for dismissing the said petitions. 9. What should be noted is that the plea of the petitioners is that they want to confront complainant’s witness in each case about the cheques issued pertaining to the other case and also certain other cheques. The impugned orders of the trial Court would also show that the learned counsel for the complainant has admitted across the Bar about the issuance of the cheques and it appears that he also stated that there is no dispute about the issuance of the said cheques and also the other cheques for which the petitioners wanted recall of PW.1 to confront him with the same. It may be noted that once the issuance of the cheques for which the petitioners wanted PW.1 to be recalled for confronting him with the same have been admitted by the complainant’s counsel, it follows that petitioners can base their defences upon the said cheques also and the same can be considered by the trial Court as observed by it in the impugned order. It may then be noted that a perusal of the depositions of P.W1 in each case would show that the learned counsel for the petitioners (accused in the trial Court) cross-examined him taking three opportunities. Now in the grounds of each of these petitions nothing is indicated as to what is the necessity to recall P.W1 and how the confrontation of him with the documents/ cheques would further help their defence. 10. This apart, the impugned orders further read that the petitioners are in the habit of filing petitions for re-opening one after the other and that the present petitions have been filed for recall of the petitions when the matters were at the stage of arguments and consequently it follows that the observation of the trial Court that petitioners were bent upon protracting the proceedings cannot be said to be unfounded. In these circumstances it follows that there is no infirmity or illegality in the orders of the trial Court. 10. Accordingly, both these petitions are dismissed at the stage of admission. ______________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J 06th June 2011 CVRK