THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Revision Case No.277 of 2011 Date:09th February, 2011 Between: G.Muralidharan ..... Petitioner AND 1. The State of A.P. rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad & Anr. .....Respondents *** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Revision Case No.277 of 2011 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order dated 03.12.2010 passed in Crl.M.P.No.987 of 2010 in C.C.No.249 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sathupalli, Khammam District, whereby and whereunder the learned Magistrate allowed the application of the complainant filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. 2. The petitioner is the accused and the 2nd respondent is the complainant in C.C.No.249 of 2005. The complainant filed the complaint before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sathupalli alleging inter alia that the petitioner/accused borrowed Rs.4.00 Lakhs from her on 02.12.2002 and issued a receipt. Subsequently, the petitioner/accused issued a cheque bearing No.153129 for Rs.4.00 Lakhs to discharge his liability. On presentation of the said cheque, it came to be dishonoured. The complainant issued a statutory notice calling upon the petitioner/accused to make good the amount covered under the cheque in question. The petitioner/accused received the notice and issued a reply notice and thereupon, the complainant issued a rejoinder notice dated 16.08.2005. There being no compliance of the demand, the complainant filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sathupalli. The learned Magistrate took the complaint on file as C.C.No.249 of 2005. The complainant filed Crl.M.P.No.987 of 2010 to recall himself for further examination for the purpose of marking the receipt dated 02.12.2002. The petitioner/accused resisted the said application. The learned Magistrate, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, proceeded to allow the application, by order dated 03.12.2010. Hence, this revision. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused and perused the order impugned in the revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused submits that the 2nd respondent/complainant has not given any explanation for not filing the original receipt dated 02.12.2002 prior to 15.09.2010, in which case, he cannot be permitted to mark the same by recalling himself. Learned counsel took me to the copy of the memo dated 15.09.2010, which finds place at page No.14 of the material papers. 5. I have gone through the copy of the complaint filed by the complainant. The complainant stated in para.1 of the complaint that the accused approached him on 02.12.2002 and borrowed an amount of Rs.4.00 Lakhs and passed a receipt acknowledging the receipt of amount. He also filed a Photostat copy of the receipt along with the list of documents enclosed to the complaint. The receipt dated 02.12.2002 is referred in the complaint and also in the statutory notice. In the given facts and circumstances, the trial Court is justified in permitting the complainant to mark the original receipt dated 02.12.2002 by recalling himself. I do not see any flaw in the order impugned in the revision warranting interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Sections 397 or 401 Cr.P.C. 6. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed at the admission stage. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:09th February, 2011 cs THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Revision Case No.277 of 2011 Date:09th February, 2011