APHC010163292025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] WEDNESDAY ,THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3524/2025 Between: Kosuri Padmavathi ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND Kottana Rambabu and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. K V L NARASIMHA RAO Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2. The Court made the following Order: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 1st respondent has filed a case against the petitioner under Section 138 of N.I Act, which is taken on file as C.C.No.540 of 2018 on the file of I Additional Civil Judge (Junior Divison)-cum-I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tadepalligudem. 2 3. The 1st respondent intended to bring on record the original promissory note which could not be filed along with the complaint. For the purpose of getting the same on record, the 1st respondent who was examined as PW1 filed a petition under Section 91, prayed the Court to permit the 1st respondent/petitioner to mark the original promissory note. The learned Magistrate allowed the petition. The petitioner/accused filed the revision before the XI Additional District Judge, Tadepalligudem vide Criminal Revision Petition No.31 of 2024 and the learned District Judge had dismissed the revision. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has now filed the present petition seeking set aside the order passed by the XI Additional District Judge, Tadepalligudem and also order passed by the I Additional Civil Judge (Junior Divison)-cum-I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tadepalligudem. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a petition under Section 91 could not have been filed by the 1st respondent as the same is available for the investigating officer of the Court. However, the Magistrate has ignored the objections raised by the petitioner and allowed the petition. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Additional District Judge also erred in dismissing the revision petition on the ground that the power under Section 91 Cr.P.C., is discretionary with the Court and that it can summon any person who is believed to be in possession of a document or thing to produce the said document or thing before the Court. 3 6. The power of the Magistrate who takes on any document which the complainant intends to file can also be exercised by the learned Magistrate under Section 145(1) of N.I.Act also. Mere citing the wrong provision would not be considered as a grave error for denying the admissibility of a document which the 1st respondent intends to bring on record. The ground raised by the petitioner seeking set aside the order passed by the Additional District Judge and the learned Magistrate could not suffice to negate the findings of the Magistrate and the District Judge. It is left open for the Magistrate to take on record the original promissory note of which the photo copy was filed along with the complaint. 7. For these reasons, this Court finds no reasons to interfere in the matter and accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. 8. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N BMS