Dr. B. Siva Sankara Rao, J.

1. This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. by the petitioner-accused, having been aggrieved by the order dated 11.06.2014 in Crl.M.P. No. 1202 of 2014 in C.C. No. 62 of 2014 on the file of the II Special Magistrate at Hasthinapuram, Ranga Reddy district (private complaint case filed for dishonour of cheque).

2. The petitioner-accused when filed Crl.M.P. No. 1202 of 2014 under Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, with a prayer to permit him to cross-examine the P.W. 1 by confronting with the video CD with the aid of CD. player to contradict with his previous statement and the same was ended in dismissal after hearing both sides vide order dated 11.06.2014 holding that admittedly, there is no previous statement of the respondent/complainant in writing on record and no material placed by the petitioner/accused certifying the authenticity of the video CD filed by the petitioner/accused. Now impugning the same filed this revision with the contentions that the order of the learned judge is erroneous and without appreciation of the facts and law in relation thereto, hence liable to be set aside.

3. The 1st respondent/complainant was served with notice and from the proof filed taken as heard to decide on merits. Heard the 2nd respondent-State. Perused the material on record.

4. Now the points that arise for consideration are:

1. Whether the impugned order, dated 11.06.2014 in Crl.M.P. No. 1202 of 2014 in C.C. No. 62 of 2014 on the file of the II Special Magistrate at Hasthinapuram, Ranga Reddy district, is unsustainable and requires interference for this Court while sitting in appeal, if so, with what observations?

2. To what result?

Point No. 1:

5. Sections 135 to 139 of the Indian Evidence Act (for short, 'the I.E. Act') speaks about examination of witnesses of the chief examination, cross-examination and re-examination even apart from deciding on admissibility by the judge while recording the evidence. Section 145 of the I.E. Act, deals with the cross-examination as to previous statements in writing which speaks 'A witness may be cross-examined as to previous statements made by him in writing or reducing into writing, and relevant to matters in question, without such writing being shown to him, or being proved; but, if it is intended to contradict him by the writing, his attention must, before the writing can be proved, be called to those parts of it which are to be used for the purpose of contradicting him'. It is needless to say in a criminal case, if there is a previous statement like under Section 162 of Cr.P.C., the material omission also, as contained in the explanation of the section, tantamounts to contradiction wherein concerned with. Coming to Section 155(3) of the I.E. Act, speaks about the credit of a witness may be impeached in the following ways by the adverse party, or, with the consent of the Court, by the party who calls him:-'by proof of former statements inconsistent with any part of his evidence which is liable to be contradicted. Thus, Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act deals with cross-examination as to the aspects for the purpose of contradiction generally and Section 155(3) of the I.E. Act, deals with the purpose of the contradiction specifically to impeach the credit of the witness. Apart from it, Section 157 of the I.E. Act deals with equally of 'former statements of witness may be proved to corroborate later testimony as to same fact'.

6. From this, the core issue is whether the video CD is a statement in writing as contemplated by Section 145 of the I.E. Act because the learned Magistrate dismissed the application with reference to it in saying there nothing about previous statement of the complainant in writing on record is placed to invoke Section 145 of the I.E. Act. In fact, the videographed material with the alleged Spypen camera that to be used for the purpose of contradiction whether comes within the scope of statement in writing from