IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD Dated this the 18th day of April, 2011. Present: The Hon’ble Sri Justice N. Ravi Shankar Cr.P.No. 9496 of 2010 Between: Md. Mohiuddin …Petitioner And G.Jayapal Reddy and another ..Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR Crl.P.No. 9496 of 2010 Order: The petitioner herein is the accused in C.C.No. 6782 of 2007 on the file of the court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class (JFCM), Warangal. The said case was registered on the complaint of the first respondent herein for an offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1891 (for short ‘the Act’) i.e., for cheque bouncing offence. 2. The point that arises for determination in this criminal petition is whether the petitioner’s request for recall of the complainant’s witnesses – PWs 1 and 2 for further cross examination should be allowed. 3. The point arises in the following circumstances. After the case reached the stage of arguments, the petitioner filed a petition i.e., Crl.M.P.No. 511 of 2009 in the said case for recall of PWs 1 and 2 for further cross examination on the ground that earlier when his counsel cross examined them, he was suffering from ill health and therefore, could not cross examine the witnesses on all aspects and consequently it has become necessary to recall PWs 1 and 2 for further cross examination. The learned Magistrate considered that application and after hearing both sides she dismissed it by her order date:20-03-2009. Against that order, the petitioner filed revision i.e., Crl.R.P.No. 42 of 2009 in the court of the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed that revision by her order dated:20-7- 2010. Assailing that order, the present criminal petition is filed raising the very same grounds for recall of PWs 1 and 2, which were already raised before the learned Magistrate, which were negatived. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that both the learned Magistrate and the learned I Additional Sessions Judge committed grave error in not giving an opportunity to the petitioner to recall PWs 1 and 2 for further cross examining them on certain aspects. 5. In this petition, at the stage of admission, notice was ordered to the first respondent and the petitioner’s counsel was permitted to take out personal notice; but, it appears that no notice has been take out. However, in the view I am taking I consider that it is not necessary to hear the first respondent. 6. The order of the learned Magistrate passed in Crl.M.P.No. 511 of 2009 would show that she had considered the matter elaborately and gave detailed reasons for rejecting the request of the petitioner for recalling Pws 1 and 2. It is seen from the order of the learned Magistrate that the matter was initially posted to 25- 9-2008 for arguments as the petitioner did not make any representation at the time of S. 313 Cr.P.C., examination to the effect that he wanted to adduce evidence or recall PWs 1 and 2. The Magistrate then observed that on15-10-2008, the petitioner filed a petition to receive certain documents and that petition was allowed with a condition to adduce his further evidence. The learned Magistrate further observed that the petitioner did not avail that opportunity to lead further evidence. It is seen from the order of the learned Magistrate that the petitioner filed another petition – Crl.M.P. No.3527 of 2008 for sending the cheque in question to the Handwriting Expert and that petition was also dismissed and the petitioner requested for three or four adjournments by representing that he wanted to prefer a revision against the order in Crl.M.P.No. 3527 of 2008, but did not pursue that remedy. The order of the learned Magistrate shows that the matter was again posted to 12.1.2009 for arguments and that thereafter it was adjourned to several dates and it was only on 2-3- 2009 the petitioner again filed the present petition for recall of PWs 1 and 2. 7. The learned Magistrate relying on the above circumstances, observed that the petitioner is only interested in dragging on the matter by filing one petition or the other in order to protract the proceedings or delay the matter. Observing so, the learned Magistrate dismissed the petition for recall of PWs 1 and 2 by further observing that in the said re-call the petitioner has not made clear as to on what specific aspects he wanted recall of PWs 1 and 2. 8. The learned Sessions Judge, of course, passed a cryptic order dismissing the revision on the ground that as the previously imposed costs were not paid and as the petitioner or his counsel did not turn up for arguing the matter, in spite of a conditional order, she examined the matter and found no irregularity in the order of the learned Magistrate and in that view of the matter she proceeded to dismiss the revision. Be that as it may, what should be noted is that the order of the learned Magistrate shows that she has considered the matter at length and came to a conclusion that the petitioner was interested only in protracting the matter. There are no compelling reasons to disagree with the views of the learned Magistrate, which have been in substance confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge. 9. It may be noted that as seen from the order of the learned Magistrate the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity to conduct is defence and despite the same, he did not take steps promptly and when the matter has been coming up for arguments he has again filed belatedly the present petition before her to recall PWs 1 and 2. The circumstances recorded by the learned Magistrate would clearly show that the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity, but he did not avail it and also did not disclose the specific aspects for which he was requesting for recall of PWs 1 and 2 for further cross examination It there follows that the learned Magistrate was right in rejecting the request of the petitioner. The order of the learned Magistrate and the order of the learned Sessions Judge confirming that order do not, in my opinion, suffer from any illegality. 10. Accordingly the point is decided in the negative and this petition is dismissed. No costs. ______________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J. Date:18—04—2011. *BVS The Hon’ble Sri Justice N. Ravi Shankar Cr.P.No. 9496 of 2010 18—04--2011