THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1567 OF 2010 ORDER: 1 This revision is directed against the order in Crl.M.P.No.3418 of 2010 in C.C.No.327 of 2009 dated 10.06.2010 on the file of the court of the learned XIX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampalli, Hyderabad whereby an application filed under section 311 of Cr.P.C. to permit the petitioner to lead further evidence was dismissed. 2 The respondent herein filed private complaint for the alleged offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner herein and the trial court took cognizance of the same and numbered it as C.C.No.327 of 2009. During the course of trial, the petitioner filed a memo stating that he is ready to pay the cheque amount provided he is given sufficient time. In the light of the said memo filed by the petitioner, the court below gave sufficient time to the petitioner to pay the said cheque amount and adjourned the matter. Despite the said fact, the petitioner had not chosen to pay the said amount. Thereafter, the complainant was examined and his evidence was closed and the matter was coming up for petitioner’s side evidence. Again the court below gave sufficient time to the petitioner to lead evidence, but he has not chosen to lead any evidence. However, the court below taking a lenient view allowed the said application permitting the petitioner to lead further evidence on payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- The same is questioned in this revision. 3 Heard. 4 The facts are not in dispute. When once the petitioner has come forward stating that he is ready to pay the cheque mount and filed a memo to that effect, the court below granted sufficient time as sought for. Despite the said accommodation, the petitioner had not paid the cheque amount. In those circumstances, the trial court proceeded further with the trial of the case and it completed the evidence on complainant’s side and posted the matter for petitioner’s side evidence. 5 From the order it is clear that the petitioner was given sufficient time to lead evidence but he has not availed the said opportunity. When the petitioner’s side evidence was closed, then he woke up and filed the present application under section 311 Cr.P.C. requesting the court to permit him to lead further evidence. In my considered view, the court below should have dismissed the said application, but, however, it exercised its discretion and allowed the said application on payment of costs of Rs.5,000/-. Without complying with the said order, the petitioner came to this court and filed the present revision, which, in my considered view, is totally baseless and abuse of process of the courts. 6 Accordingly, I see no merits in this revision and the same is thus dismissed. -------------- 07.02.2011 Kvsn