HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.1606 and 1608 of 2008 COMMON ORDER: Since both the parties in the petitions are one and the same and these two petitions arose out of one calendar case, they are being together disposed of by this common order. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the petitioner-complainant filed a complaint against the 2nd respondent-accused, in C.C.No.160 of 2006 on the file of the IV Addl. Munsif Magistrate at Guntur for the offences under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short “the Act”). Subsequently, the petitioner filed Crl.M.P.Nos.1662 and 1663 of 2007 seeking to reopen the matter for the purpose of examining the Manager, Indus Ind Bank, Guntur and to summon him to cause production of certain documents. The learned Magistrate on hearing both sides dismissed the applications by separate orders dated 30.10.2007. Questioning the same, the petitioner preferred Crl.R.P.Nos.111 and 112 of 2007 on the file of the III Addl. Sessions Judge, Guntur and the learned Sessions Judge also dismissed the revisions by separate orders dated 08.01.2008. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the criminal petitions. Heard both sides. It is mainly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that during the course of cross-examination of D.W.1 certain facts were touched upon which are based on certain documents lies with the bank of the 2nd respondent and to establish the facts of date of opening of the account, requisition for issuance of cheque book and the record showing the date of issuing of cheque book to the 2nd respondent, the petitioner filed the applications to reopen the matter for the purpose of examining the Bank Manager and to summon him to cause production of the said documents. But, the trial Court and the revisional Court without assigning proper and cogent reasons passed the impugned orders. A perusal of the record shows that at the time of examination of the 2nd respondent as D.W.1, the petitioner put a question to the witness. The said question is whether any account was in existence by the date of issuance of cheque i.e. 07.07.2005 and the answer given by the accused is he is not aware of opening of the account either on 01.08.2005 or prior to that. This Court is of the view that if an account is opened on 01.08.2005, question of issuance of cheque in the said account on 07.07.2005 does not arise and much earlier to the opening of an account, there cannot be any cheque book available for a person to issue cheque in the said account. Even though the trial Court has not given any cogent reasons for dismissal of the applications, this Court is of the view that the answer given by the 2nd respondent during cross-examination would cause no prejudice to the case of the petitioner and there is no need for reopening the matter for the purpose of examining the Bank Manager and summoning him to cause production of the documents concerned. With the above observations, both the Criminal Petitions are disposed of. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, filed shall stand closed. __________________ RAJA ELANGO, J 17th March, 2011 CBS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.1606 & 1608 of 2008 (Disposed of) 17th March, 2011 CBS