P. PRIYA CHAITANYA Vs. STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the order, dated 29.01.2018, in Crl.M.P. No.3 of 2018 in C.C.No.208 of 2014, passed by learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tenali, dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 311 of Cr.P.C seeking to recall P.W.1 for further cross-examination in respect of Ex.P5 and also in respect of served copy of postal acknowledgment dated 17.07.2013 and for marking the same, the instant Crl.R.C is filed.

(2.) Heard.

(3.) Learned counsel for petitioner/accused would argue that the respondent/complainant filed Ex.P5, which is said to be the served copy of postal acknowledgment dated 15.07.2013. He would further submit that the respondent/complainant filed Ex.P5 and he also filed another acknowledgment dated 17.07.2013 which contains the address of the counsel for respondent/complainant. Learned counsel would further submit that in fact both the notices dated 15.07.2013 and 17.07.2013 were not at all served on the petitioner/accused and signatures appearing on the acknowledgments do not belong to her. However, the respondent/complainant filed both the acknowledgments into the Court stating as if the statutory notice under Section 138 of N.I. Act was served on the petitioner/accused by way of the registered notices under the impugned acknowledgments. However, he got marked only one postal acknowledgment as Ex.P5. Therefore, it is necessary to recall P.W.1 to cross-examine him in respect of two postal acknowledgments under which notices were allegedly served on the petitioner/accused. He would argue that the trial Court dismissed the petition on the ground that the petition was filed belatedly at the stage of arguments despite the petitioner/accused knowing about the filing of the two postal acknowledgments in to the Court and that he kept quiet for more than two years and filed the petition at a fag-end of the case.