ORDER:

This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order dated

21-11-2012 passed in Crl.M.P.No.781 of 2012 in Criminal Appeal No.542 of 2011 on the file of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, whereby and whereunder, the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge dismissed the application filed under Section 391 Cr.P.C.

2. The petitioner is the complainant and the 1st respondent is the accused in C.C.No.62 of 2010 on the file of XX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Hyderabad. The petitioner/complainant filed complaint against the 1st respondent/accused for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial Court dismissed the complaint on the ground that the petitioner/complainant did not possess the money lending licence on the date of the transaction, by judgment dated 19-11-2010. The petitioner/complainant assailed the judgment of acquittal of the 1st respondent for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act by filing Criminal Appeal No.542 of 2011. He filed Crl.M.P.No.781 of 2012 under Section 391 Cr.P.C to receive the endorsement certificate as additional evidence. The said application has been opposed by the 1st respondent-accused. The learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, came to the conclusion that the renewed licence has no retrospective effect and thereby, proceeded to dismiss the petition, by order dated 21-11-2012. The said order is assailed in this revision.

3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent-accused.

4. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/complainant that the petitioner/complainant filed application for renewal before expiry of the licence period and on the date of commencement of trial, the petitioner/complainant did not receive renewal endorsement and therefore, he could not produce the same in the trial court. A further contention has been advanced that the petitioner received renewal endorsement after dismissal of the C.C and it necessitated him to move an application under Section 391 Cr.P.C to receive endorsement certificate as additional evidence. He would further contend that the lower appellate Court without referring the application for renewal came to the conclusion that endorsement certificate has no retrospective effect and therefore, the order impugned in the revision is liable to be set aside.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent-accused submits that the petitioner did not speak of his possessing money lending licence at the relevant period during the course of his evidence and therefore, he cannot be permitted to fill up the lacunae at the appellate stage. He would also submit that the lower appellate court considered the material brought on record in a right perspective and proceeded to dismiss the petition filed under Section 391 Cr.P.C and the order impugned in the revision does not warrant interference in exercise of powers under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C.

6. I have gone through the petition filed under Section 391 Cr.P.C.

The petitioner specifically pleaded in the petition that application for renewal had been filed well before the expiry of the licence period. Indeed, the petitioner marked applications filed for renewal in the trial Court. It is trite to refer the relevant portion of the application filed under Section 391 Cr.P.C and it is thus:-

“It is submitted that the petitioner/appellant has been applying for renewal of licence since 2006 for each year before its expiry, but the concerned collectorate kept it pending to renew the licence to the petitioner all these years. In the mean time the case in C.C.No.330/20009 was disposed off for which an appeal is pending while the matter stood thus in the recent past the collectorate, Hyderabad issued renewal of licence dt.4-6-2012 for the year 2011-2012 and in the said endorsement, it is clearl