Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 542 (AP)

R. Ramanjanyulu v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2014-04-11

K.G.SHANKAR

body2014
ORDER The order of the learned III Special Magistrate, Hyderabad, dated 3.2.2014 in Crl. MP No. 35 of 2014 in CC No. 42 of 2013 (old CC No. 227 of 2012) rejecting the request of the accused to send Ex.P1-cheque to Handwriting Expert is assailed through the present revision. 2. The second respondent/de facto complainant laid CC No. 42 of 2013 against the petitioner/accused on the basis of Ex.P1-cheque for Rs.10,00,000/-. The petitioner took the stand that he initially issued a cheque for Rs.1 lakh in favour of the second respondent and where it was represented by the petitioner that the cheque was misplaced, Ex.P1-cheque was issued. The petitioner further contended that in EX.P1-cheque, he merely scribed the figures Rs.1,00,000/- in the column meant for figures and signed the cheque leaving blank the date column and the amount in words line. It is contended by the petitioner that the second respondent materially altered the cheque showing as if the petitioner issued a cheque for Rs.10 lakhs. 3. Thus, the petitioner is not disputing the Ex.P1-cheque issued by him. He, however, contended that he issued the cheque for Rs.1,00,000/- only. Stating that the third 0' (zero) from left side in Ex.P1-cheque was not scribed by the petitioner, the petitioner filed the present petition. 4. Sri A. Sudhakar Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner/accused contended that where the petitioner is denying the contents of Ex.P1-cheque and where the second respondent is asserting that the contents of Ex.P1-cheque are true, it would be just and reasonable to allow the petitioner to send the document to Handwriting Expert to determine whether 0', as disputed by the petitioner, was in his handwriting or otherwise. On the other hand, Sri K. Saibabu, learned Counsel for the second respondent/de facto complainant contended that the petition is highly belated and it cannot be entertained. 5. The docket orders show that on 4.3.2014, the case was posted for arguments and that the accused sought further time. The case, consequently, was posted to 13.3.2014 for judgment giving liberty to the accused for filing written arguments in the meanwhile. On the other hand, on 10.3.2014, the accused represented that revision was already filed restraining the trial Court from disposing CC No. 42 of 2013. Prior to that Crl. M.P. 35 of 2014 was filed and it was disposed of on 3.2.2014. 6. On the other hand, on 10.3.2014, the accused represented that revision was already filed restraining the trial Court from disposing CC No. 42 of 2013. Prior to that Crl. M.P. 35 of 2014 was filed and it was disposed of on 3.2.2014. 6. It has been the case of the petitioner that Ex.P1-cheque was materially altered. However, till the case stood posted for arguments, the petitioner did not choose to file a petition to send Ex.P1-cheque to Handwriting Expert. In similar circumstances, a learned single Judge of this Court held in Nalnaru Shamnugam v. Nalnarn Narayanaiah, 2013 (1) ALD 301 , that the petition to send the document to Handwriting Expert would deserve to be dismissed if there was belatedness on the part of the party. 7. In the present case, the complaint was laid in 2012. Till 2014, the petitioner did not choose to file any petition to send Ex.P1-cheque to Handwriting Expert. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as soon as the evidence on both sides was over, a petition under Section 45 of the Evidence Act was filed. I am afraid that the petitioner ought to have taken steps at the earliest possible opportunity to send Ex.P1-cheque to Handwriting Expert. The petitioner did not choose to do so. As rightly observed by the learned Trial Judge, this petition is belated and deserves to be dismissed. I, therefore, see no merits in this revision. 8. The criminal revision case is accordingly dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this revision, shall stand closed.