THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1564 of 2010 JUDGMENT: This Revision is directed against the order, dated 30.07.2010, made in Crl.M.P.No.3595 of 2010 in C.C.No.1588 of 2007 on the file of the VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, whereby an application filed by the petitioner herein-accused under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., seeking to recall P.W-1 for further cross-examination was dismissed. The first respondent herein-complainant filed the said C.C. alleging an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the Magistrate took cognizance of the same. When the matter had come up for trial, the complainant was examined in chief as P.W-1 and thereafter, he was also cross-examined by the petitioner herein and when the matter has come up for further evidence, the petitioner herein filed the said application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., seeking to recall P.W-1 for further cross-examination for the purpose of eliciting the fact that he is doing money lending business, and as stated supra, the same was dismissed by the Court below. Heard both sides. From a perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that P.W-1 was cross-examined at length. In the said cross- examination, dated 04.02.2010, several suggestions were made on behalf of the petitioner herein with regard to the complainant doing money lending business and also with regard to instituting the suits. Of course, the said suggestions were denied by P.W-1. In fact, there was a specific suggestion to the complainant in his cross- examination that he was doing money lending business and was collecting interest at the rate of 30% per month. When there is so much of cross-examination of P.W-1, with regard to the said money lending business done by him, it is not known as to why again he shall be examined for the purpose of eliciting the very same fact. All these aspects were dealt with by the learned Magistrate at paragraph No.6 in the impugned order. Apparently, the present application appears to have been filed only to prolong the litigation. Accordingly, I see no merits in this Revision and the same is dismissed. ___________________________________ JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA 19th October 2010 dr