Nampally Srinivas v. Samala Babu

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 326 OF 2023 Between:

Nampally Srinivas, S/o. Ramaiah, Aged 40 years, Occ. Business, Rt/o. H.No.2-7-107, Sanjeevayya Nagar, Sircilla Proper and Mandal, Rajanna Sircilla District- ...PETITIONERYPETITIONER/ACCUSED AND Samala Babu, S/o. Laxmirajam, Aged about 48 years, Occ. Business, Rl/o H.No.2-6-103, Sanjeevayya Nagar, Sircilla Proper and Mandal, Rajanna Sircilla District.

...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

2. The State of Telangana, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.

...RESPONDENT Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to Quash the Order dated 06-04-2021 passed in Crl.R.P.No.16 of 2020 on the file of Hon'ble lX Additional District and Sessions Judge at Sircilla, Rajanna Sircilla District.

l.A. NO: 1OF 2023 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to Stay all further proceedings in C.C. No. 359 of 2016 on the file of Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, at Sicilia, Rajanna Sicilla District, pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition.

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri V. V. Ramana Rao, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No.1.

The Court made the following: ORDER

Crl.P.No.326 of 2023 THE HONOURABLE SRI ]USTICE K.SURENDER MINAL PETITION N ORDER:

Aggrieved by the judgment dated 06.04.2021 passed in Crl.R.P.No.16 of 2020 by the learned IX Additional District Judge, Sircilla, this Criminal Petition is filed by the Petitioner-Revision Petitioner-Accused,

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.2 - State. Perused the material on record.

3. The case of the petitioner is that he is accused, being prosecuted for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (for short "NI Act'). However, when an application under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act was made by this petitioner before the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sircilla with a prayer to send the cheque in question to an handwriting expert for the purpose of comparison, the same was rejected by the Magistrate mainly on two grounds i.e. firstly on the ground that the cheque was not returned by the bank on the

--r Crl. P.No.325 of 2023 ground of dissimilarities in the signature of the petitioner but was returned on account of "insufficient funds" and secondly the signatures of the relevant period were not furnished. The said refusal by the learned Magistrate was carried in revision to the Sessions Court by the petitioner. The learned Sessions Judge in revision concurred with the findings of the learned Magistrate and dismissed the revision petition of this petitioner. However, the petitioner has taken his stand that the signature on the cheque is forged and it is not of his signature.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the signatures of the relevant time would be available with the bank when the account was opened. The said signatures in the bank can be compared with the signatures on the cheque. He relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Kalyani Bhasker vs. M.S.Sampoornam' in which it is held that'a fair chance has to be given in the circumstances of the accused denying his signature and requesting the Court to send it for expert for the purpose of an opinion regarding the signatures on the cheque'. I lzooz; z scc zsa

Crl.P.No.326 of 2023

5. In view of above discussion, since the petitioner has taken stand that the signature is not that of his and filed an application at the earliest point of time, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the learned Magistrate to send the cheque in question to the handwriting expert to compare with the specimen signatures available in the bank.

6.

With the above direction, the Criminal Petition is allowed. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/.V.KAVITHA ASSISTANT BEqISTRAR t'-lr,-'

//TRUE COPY// \ SECTION OFFICER j. The lX Additional District Judge at Sircilla, Sircilla District. One CC to Sri V. V. Ramana Rao, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to Public Proseculor, High Court for the State of Telangana (OUT) Two CD coPies To, 2.

J.

4.

KK gbr /at q)

HIGH COURT DATED:1010112.023 1trE s g 17 tEB 2oa z q + ,ri l[sPr,I.'

ORDER

CRL.P.No.326 of 2023 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION cr?'s u9----- -g1a1ao