APHC010516762024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8298/2024 Between: Indupur Gunna Raju ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. BONU RAMA SHANKAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following Order: The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed Crl.A. No.29 of 2024 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Parvathipuram, against the judgment of conviction in C.C. No.354 of 2015 for the alleged offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,80,000/-. 2 2. It is submitted that the petitioner has sought to produce additional documents in the form of: (1) the decree and judgment in O.S. No.49 of 2013 dated 05.12.2014; (2) a copy of E.P. No.19 of 2015 dated 19.01.2015; (3) a served copy of the attachment warrant of arrest dated 05.07.2015; and (4) a copy of the full satisfaction memo in E.P. No.19 of 2015 dated 10.04.2015. These documents were sought to be produced as additional evidence in the appeal, and a petition was filed before the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Parvathipuram, to receive them as credible evidence. However, the learned District Judge dismissed the petition, observing that the judgment copy in the civil suit, the E.P. copy, and the full satisfaction memo had no relevance to the dishonour of the cheque, which occurred subsequent to the said proceedings. 3. Admittedly, the documents on which the petitioner intended to submit as additional evidence are all dated 2014 and 2015. The C.C. was pending before the trial Court from the year 2015 onwards and the same was decided on merits on 10.06.2024. The petitioner has not exhibited any effort to get those documents on record during the pendency of the C.C. That apart, the belated attempt of the petitioner is intended only to delay the process of law, as was rightly observed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Parvathipuram. This Court finds no infirmity in the well-considered order of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Parvathipuram. 4. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. 3 As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N 28.03.2025 PNS