T. SUSEELA Vs. STATE OF A.P.
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
STATE OF A.P.
Click here to view full judgement.
U Durga Prasad Rao, J. -
(1.)The challenge in the Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, at the instance of the petitioner/accused, is to the order dt.29.01.2019 in Criminal Revision Petition No.99/2018 passed by the learned XIII Additional Sessions Judge, Vijayawada dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner/accused against the order in Crl.M.P.No.2312/2018 in C.C. No.57/2017, dt.13.11.2018 passed by the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner/accused to recall PW.1 for further cross-examination.
(2.)Heard the learned counsel for petitioner Sri Y.Balaji and the learned counsel for second respondent Sri D.Aneel Kumar.
(3.)As can be seen, the petitioner/accused filed Crl.M.P.No.2312/2018 under Section 311 of Cr.P.C to recall PW.1 for further cross-examination on the aspect of signatures on Ex.P.7- promissory note. It is pleaded that the complainant/second Respondent having taken advantage of the fact that the signatures of the accused are available on Ex.P1-cheque, fabricated on Ex.P7- promissory note by forging the signatures of the accused on it in connivance with the attestors and scribe and then filed C.C. No.57/2017. The writings on Ex.P.1-cheque do not belong to the petitioner/accused. The scribe and attestors of Ex.P.7-promissory note are unknown to the accused and she has never seen them. Thus, the petitioner/accused contended that the signatures on Ex.P.7- promissory note do not belong to her and it was forged document, therefore to further cross-examine PW1, about her signatures on Ex.P7-promissory note, she prayed to recall PW.1.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.