M. Seetharama Murti, J.

1. These three Criminal Revision cases, Under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short, 'the Code') by the unsuccessful petitioner/accused are directed against the common orders, dated 4-5-2017, of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Special Mobile Court, at Nalgonda, passed in Crl.M.P. Nos. 227, 228 and 866 of 2017 in C.C. No. 329 of 2012. I have heard the submissions of Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused, and of Sri Vishnuvardhan Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/complainant. I have also heard the submissions of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 2nd respondent, State of Telangana. I have perused the material record.

2. The facts, which require reference and consideration, in brief, are as follows:

The accused is facing trial in the subject calendar case for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. At the stage of arguments, the complainant filed the aforesaid petitions to reopen the evidence, receive documents and recall him (P.W.1) for further examination and for marking the subject documents, mentioned in the application.

3. The case of the complainant in support of the said requests, in brief, is as follows: 'During his examination earlier as P.W.1, the complainant could not file the certified copy of legal notice, dated 2-6-2012, postal receipt, acknowledgement card, reply notices, dated 5-6-2012 and 7-6-2012 and statement of Bank account as the said documents were filed in another matter and certified copies of the same could not be obtained by that time. Later, the complainant obtained certified copies of the aforesaid documents. Filing and exhibiting of the said documents in the evidence of P.W. 1 by recalling him is essential to prove the case of the complainant. Hence, he is obliged to file the subject applications.

4. The case of the accused, in brief, is this:

The petitions are not maintainable. The documents are not related to the present case. The present case is a calendar case and not a civil case. The complainant earlier filed a petition requesting for comparison of signatures without producing any documents. Subsequently, the present three applications are filed to delay the proceedings. No reasons are assigned for not filing the documents earlier. No explanation was offered for belated filing of the documents. The documents are no way helpful to the case of the complainant. The petitions are intended to fill up the lacunae in the evidence after P.W. 1 was cross examined. No cogent and valid reasons are assigned for reopening the evidence, receiving documents and recalling P.W.1 for further examination.

5. By the common orders impugned in these revisions, the learned Magistrate allowed the petitions filed by the complainant. Hence, the aggrieved accused is before this Court.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the accused while reiterating the case of the accused would submit as follows: 'The documents are not filed at the earliest opportunity. The subject petitions are filed by the complainant when the CC is at the stage of arguments. No reasonable explanation is assigned for not filing the documents earlier or for the delay in filing the documents. Vague and casual allegations are made in support of the requests of the petitioner/complainant. The CC is of the year 2012. According permission to file the documents after recalling P.W.1 at the fag end of the case is impermissible. Such a course causes great prejudice to the defence of the accused. However, without adverting to the facts peculiar to the case, the trial Court simply allowed the petitions.'

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the complainant while supporting the orders of the Court below would submit that the documents are only notices exchanged and copy of an account obtained from a Bank and that therefore, no prejudice would be caused if the documents are p