High Court · 2025

Prosecutor, High Court for ...Respondents petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the order dt. 17-07-2025. in crl-M-P.No7 of 2023 in crl.A.No. 21 0f 2021 0n the file of the court of the V Additional Sessions Judgre, Miryalguda by recalling PW.1 for further cross examinatiqn to confront the variations and contradictions in his evidence by receiving tlrc deposition in o.s.No. g32 of 2015 on the file of the court of the ill Addl. Di$trict Judge, Ranga Reddy Dist. at L.B.Nagar and mark the same as exhibit. l.A. NO: 1 OF 12025 Petition uncier Section 528 of B.N.S.S. praying that in the circumstances stated in the $/lemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to Stay all further proceedings in Crl.A.No. 21 of 2021 on the file of the Court of tlre V Additional Sessions Judge, Miryalguda, pending disposal of the above Crl. P. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of (]riminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri G Sundaresan, Advocate for the Petitioner, and Sri N.V. Anantha Krishna, Acivocate ior the Respondent No.I anci Sri Jithencier Rao Veeramalla, the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.2 The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EAOE ORDER: This criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused aggrieved by the order dated 17.0r.2023 passed in crl.lvlp No.7 of 2025 in crl.A. No.21 of 2021 by the V Additionat sessior;s Judge at Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District, whereunder the petition filed under Section 391 cr.P.c., seeking to adduce additional evidelnce before the Sessions Court, is dismissed. 2- Heard sri G. sundaresan, rearned counsel for the petitioner, sri N.v. Anantha Krishna, learned counsbl for the respondent No.1 and sri Jithender Rao veeramall{, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.2-state.

3. The learned counser for the petitioner has sublnitted that the petitioner is the accused in cc No. 123s of 2o1s for t[re offence under section 138 of the Negotiable lnstruments Act (for short ,Nl Act') and the same ended in conviction and sentence qgainst the petitioner. challenging the said judgment of conviction, th$ petitioner filed criminal Appeal No.21 of 2oz1 on the fite of the v Additional sessions Judge, Miryalaguda. He further submitted that lduring the p..hgn"y of the said appeal, the petitioner filed a petifion under 2 ETD,J Ctl.P. No-13211 of 2025 Section :391 Cr.P.C., before the appellate court to recall the witness- PW.1, respondent No.1 herein, to enable her to further cross- examine PW.1, on his evidence given in the money recovery suit filed by him against the petitioner vlde O.S. No.B32 of 2015 on the file of lll-Additional district court, Ranga Reddy District. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in the evidence of respondent No.1-de facto complainant in O.S.No.832 of 2015, several :ontradictions and variations were brought out and that she intends 1:o confront the said contradictions and variations by recalling PW.1, and that the appellate court ought to have allowed the petition to enab,le the petitioner to adduce the additional evidence by summoning PW.1. He further submitted that the contradictions and the variations in the evidence of PW.1 in the money recovery suit may help the petitioner in proving her innocence, which may end up in acquittal, but the appellate court has dismissed the petition, which may cause prejudice to the rights of the petitioner. He, therefore, prayed to set aside the impugned order and allow the application filed by the petitioner under Section 391 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Telanakula Kasi Viswanadham v. Pokuri Maruthi Prasadl. ' zotsl+; ALr 223 (Ap) 3 EID,J Ctt.P. No.13211 ot ZO2S 4- The learned counset for the respondent No.1 h4s submitted that the evidence of pw.1 in the money recovery suit is inelevant in the present case and that under section 3g1 cr.p.c., only additional evidence has to be adduced, but a witness before thg civir court cannot be recalled in the criminal case. He further subrnitted that the suit is filed in the year 2o1s and eversince then, it1 has been prolonged and the cc under section 13g of Nl Act is 4lso filed in 2015 and that it has been dragged on for the past 10 ydars, but tiil date the respondent No.2 is denied the returns from the petitioner inspite of proving his case under 13g of Nr Act. He further submitted that the petitioner has filed the present petition only to dlrag on the proceedings and that the petition itserf is not maintainabre for the relief sought for by the petitioner He, therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition and uphold the order passed by the appellate court.

5. Perused the record.

6. The petitioner is the accused in a case under sEction 13g of Nl Act vide cc No.123s of 201s. The said case was ended in conviction, against which the petitioner filed Crl.A. No.2i of 2021 before the court of V Additionar sessions Judge, Miryaraguda. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner has filedla petition under section 3g1 cr.p.c. vide crr.M.p. No.7 of 20zS lefore the "\ , ) 4 ETD,J Cd.P. No.13211 ol 2025 appellate court. Through the said application, the petitioner wants to adduce additional evidence by marking the deposition of Pw'1 recorded in the money recovery suit filed against her by the responde'nt No.1 and further she wants to cross-examine PW'1 by recalling him in the appeal. section 391 Cr.P.C. is extracted hereundt:r for the sake of reference: ..3gl.AppellateCourtmaytakefurtherevidenceordirectitto be taken- (1) (2) (3) (4) ln dealing with any appeal under this Chapter, the Appellate Court, if it thinks additional evidence to be necessary, shall record its reasons and may either take such evidence itself, or direct it to be taken by a Magistrate, or when the Appellate Court is a High Court, by a Court of Session or a Magistrate' When the additional evidence is taken by the Court of Session or the Magistrate' it or he shall certify such evidence to the Appellate Court, and such Court shall thereupon proceed to dispose of the appeal' The accused or his pleader shall have the right to be present when the additional evidence is taken' The taking of evidence under this section shall be subject to the provisions of Chapter XXlll, as if it were an inquiry." 7 Thus, the additional evidence can be taken by the appellate court or it can direct the trial court to take additional evidence in appropriate cases by recording reasons for taking additional evidenc;e. The said discretion given to the appellate court is not /I ( 5 EfD,J Ctl-P. No.1i211 ol 2025 intended to fill up the lacuna in the prosecution eviden cQ or to make out the case different from the one already on record. ln the present case, the petition is filed to adduce the additional evidence by marking the deposition of PW.1-de facto complainant pdduced by him in o.s. No.832 of 2015 filed for recovery of money against the petitioner herein by the de facto complainant. lt is the rcase of the petitioner that she could bring out several variFtions and contradictions in the evidence of PW.1 during the courge of cross- examination in the said suit. Through the application under Section 391 cr.P.c., the petitioner intends to mark the said deposition and further wants to summon PW.1 for further cross-exami nation in this case.

8. lt is pertinent to observe in this regard that Whether the deposition in a civil case is retevant in the criminal ppoceedings. Under section 391 cr.P.c., the court shall summon and rexamine or recall or re-examine any person, if his evidence appears to be essential to the just decision of the court. ln a case under Section 138 of Nl Act, it would be sufficient if the complainant proves his case that a cheque was issued for a legally enforceable debt and that it is returned by the banker for the reasons stated therein and further a notice to be issued within a period of (15) days from the 'I ) 6 ETO,J Cil.P. No.13211 ol 2025 date of such return and a complaint needs to be filed within a period of one month from the expiry of the said (15) days. lf these ingredients are satisfied, then the offence under Section 138 of Nl Act gets proved. The said ingredients were held by the trial court to be proved and thus, the petitioner herein was convicted. Now, he wants to rely upon the deposition of PW.1 in a civil suit in the appeal filed by him to prove his innocence. ln what way would the said depositic,n help the petitioner to dislodge the ingredients under Section 'l38 of Nl Act, is a big question.

9. The defence taken by the petitioner before the trial court is that she dld not issue the cheque in dispute towards a legally enforceable debt, but the respondent No.1 in collusion with one Gali Narayana Reddy, who worked under her husband in the Bar & Restaurernt run by them at Miryalaguda and entrusted to keep with him their signed blank cheques and promissory notes for the purpose of business and thus, the respondent No.1 has misused the said ceh,ques and promissory notes. lt is borne out by record that in the crosrs-examination, PW.1 has deposed before the trial court in this casr: that he was acquainted with Gali Narayana Reddy at Miryalagua as he worked under one Seetharama Reddy, husband of the petitioner. But, in the evidence given in the civil suit i.e. O.S. 7 ETD,J Ctl.P. No.l3211 ol 2025 No.B32 of 2015, he deposed that he had seen Gali Narayana Reddy for the first time at his residence at Hyderabad when the petitioner and her husband approached him for obtaining loan and thereafter on the day of executing the promissory note and lastty wtrile issuing the cheque in dispute. The petitioner intends to put forth the above statement of PW.1 in additionat evidence.

10. The contention of the petitioner is that in the evidence given by the respondent No.1 in the civil suit, he deposed that both the cheque and the promissory note were executed by thp petitioner on the same day. But, in the present case, he atteged that after six months of executing the promissory note by the petitioner for an amount of Rs.16,11,000/-, when he demanded her to repay the amount, she issued the cheque in dispute towards discharging the said debt. Thus, this is also a contradiction on which the petitioner is banking upon to adduce the deposition of PW.1 before the civil court as additional evidence in the present case. He relied upon the decision of the High court of A.p. in Telanakula Kasi viswanadham's case (cited supra), wherein it was held thht: "As it is the case of the revision petitioner/respondent in the instant oP that the witness (pw1) made a statement in his present deposition contrary to contain admissions, which he made in the deposition given by him in the former judlcial I \ 8 EfD,J C.l.P, No.1t211 ol 2025 proceeding, the contrary statements in his said previous deposition can be confronted to him in his cross-examination - ln the result the Civil revision petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside - The trial Court is now directed to permit the counsel for the revision petitioner/respondent in the OP to further cross-examine PW1 and elicit answers by confronting to him the portions in his deposition given - As a sequel to this order, the trial Court shall suo motu recall the witness PW1 for the above purpose, if the evidence of the said witness is already closed." 1'1. But, in the present case, admittedly, the judgment in CC No.1235 of 2015 for the offence under Section 138 of Nl Act is prior in time vuhen compared to the evidence adduced by the respondent No.1-de facfo complainant before the civil court in the money recovery suit. Under Section 33 of the lndian Evidence Act, the evidenco given by a witness in a previous judicial proceeding is relevant in the subsequent judicial proceeding for the purpose of proving the truth of the said facts. But, here the evidence of PW.1 is subsequent to the judgment passed by the trial court. However, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the appeal is continuation of the trial proceedings and hence, the said evidence can be t;tken in this case and that the petitioner should be permitted for further cross-examination of PW.1. But, since the signature is not disputed, the only defence taken by the petitioner is that the signed 9 ETD,J Ctt.P. No.13211 of 2025 blank cheques are misused by the respondent No.1, in which case the said contradictions, which she is banking upon, may not be of any use for her to fill the gaps or lacunae in her case in the appeal. However, the reasons stated by the petitioner do not fulfill the requirements under Section 391 Cr.P.C., for permitting her to adduce additional evidence. The trial court and the revisional court have rightly dismissed the petition. Hence, this court finds no infirmity in the order passed by the revisional court and hence, the same is upheld, and the present petition is liable to be disfnissed.

12. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. SD'. L. VIJAYA LAXMI ISTANT REGISTRAR /TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The v Additional Sessions Judge, Miryalguda, Nalgonda District' 2. One CC to Sri. G Sundaresan, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to public prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT] 4. One CC to N.V. Anantha Krishna, Advocate IOPUCI 5 Two CD CoPies b, Yf R /Sa HIGH COL'RT DATED i2a;11112025 ORDER CRLP.No. 13211 of 2025 , {ii Itit$ c,() i 2 3 JAt,| 2026 ',; \ It*x,gf;;" DISMISSED OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION. ,$ I $ \'ll 5