Vaka Anji Reddy v. The State Of A.P. Rep By Public Prosecutor
ÐÏࡱá>þÿ 79þÿÿÿ6ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ð¿@bjbjqPqP ;":: %ÿÿÿÿÿÿ¤žžž ̈ ́ ́ ́ÈÌ Ì Ì 8$(È<zHH"jjjjjj»1⁄21⁄21⁄21⁄21⁄21⁄2$¶h~á ́jjjjjá ́ ́jjöj3⁄4 ́j ́j»j»G ́ ́"j<ð!~©laÐÌ (‚_,0<g,œaœ"œ ́"üjjjjjjjáá° jjjj<jjjjÈÈÈÌ ÈÈÈÌ ÈÈÈ ́ ́ ́ ́ ́ ́ÿÿÿÿHON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE B. SIVA SANKARA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.1144 of 2015 ORDER : This Criminal Petition is filed by the Petitioner/Accused under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking to quash the proceedings in Crl.M.P.No.84 of 2014 in C.A. No.
107 of 2012 on the file of VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ongole, Prakasam District under which the petition under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, to send the disputed pronote and cheque to the proper hand writing expert for opinion, was dismissed. 2) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. For this Court prima facie there appears no grounds to sit against the impugned order of the lower appellate Court referred supra, to exercise the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C that too when the appellate Court exercised its discretionary power under Section 391 Cr.P.C and not chosen to permit the additional evidence in the limited purpose of the application filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to send the disputed writing in the cheque to an expert for opinion.
Undisputedly in the trial Court no such recourse taken. He claims for no means he could not sought which is not a ground for interference or to allow, in the absence of any merits. No doubt in the cross-examination of P.W-1 before the trial Court by accused, there is a suggestion disputing the cheque said to have been issued saying forgery. It is not necessary in the application to go into factual merits of the appeal by detailed hearing on facts and law including any presumption can be drawn under Section 118 (a to f) and Section 139 read with 138 explanation of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the scope covered by the expression of the Apex Court three Judges bench in RANGAPPA vs. MOHAN, but for leaving it to the lower appellate Court to consider any necessity to invoke Section 165 of Indian Evidence Act read with 391 Cr.P.C.
3) Having regard to the above and in the result, the petition is disposed of with the observations that the lower Court can entertain fresh application of the appellant petition and decide with main appeal in deciding the appeal by reappraising the entire evidence and come to independent conclusion as to any necessity for effective decision of the case to send the document to expert to seek opinion or can compare by it under Section 73 of Indian Evidence Act. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this criminal petition shall stand closed. ___________________________ Dr. B. SIVA SANKARA RAO, J 16.06.
2015 ksh AIR 2010 SC 1898 PAGE PAGE 2 ()>CIJKLQRSTUVñáÔÈ1⁄4Ȱ¡Ž{hŽVG8h Åh"tCJOJQJ^Jh Åh"tCJOJQJ^J"h Åh"t5CJOJQJ\^J%h Åh¶5>*CJOJQJ\^J%h ÅhÂæ5>*CJOJQJ\^J%h Åh"t5>*CJOJQJ\^Jh Åh«KNCJOJQJ^Jh,ÑCJOJQJ^Jhï\CJOJQJ^JhžåCJOJQJ^Jh ÅhP8†CJOJQJh ÅhÂæ5CJOJQJ\h ÅhÂæ5CJOJQJ()KLUVû ‰1⁄23⁄4¿Ûö÷õðîîèÓ3⁄43⁄4 ̧°°°®©¤îîîgd1⁄2@ógdr\$a$gdÂæ„^„$ ÆÐ„Ðdà¤ð`„Ða$gd3⁄4@ $ ÆÐ„Ðdà¤ð`„Ða$gdtv< ÆàÀ!gdòs$a$gdòs?
ýýýVÍú û þ * _ k „ - Ã Ì '-;hl çùúüˆ‰Œ®ÊXñåñÖÇåo®å®å®å®å¢å®å®xl®l`®T®h›$@CJOJQJaJhÐd;CJOJQJaJh°qCJOJQJaJ/jh1⁄2@óh1⁄2@ó0J56CJOJQJUaJ"h1⁄2@ CJOJQJaJh1⁄2@óCJOJQJaJhtv<h ÅCJOJQJaJXY1⁄41⁄23⁄4¿ÛõöøùûüÿñàÔÅ»®¡®•†w†hYJC= h"tCJh ÅhÂæh Åhx zCJOJQJ^Jh ÅhÂæCJOJQJ^Jh ÅhƒEÆCJOJQJ^Jh Åh>abCJOJQJ^Jh ÅhþX|CJOJQJ^Jh5ðCJOJQJ^Jh ÅhÂæCJOJQJh ÅhÂæCJOJQJh×BCJOJQJh Åh1⁄2hùCJOJQJ^Jh›$@CJOJQJaJ htv<hLd CJOJQJ^JaJhLd hLd CJOJQJ^J !#$&'-./1289:;<=>?@ðçãÛãÛãÛãÛãÑËÑËÇÑËÑ1⁄4Ñ˶Çã° h"tCJ hCJh+¢0JmHnHuh h0Jjh0JUjho,eUho,eh%&"hCJjh%&"h0JCJU "#%&/01<=>?@ýýýýýýôòýôòýýígdr\„üÿ„&`#$9 0&P1h:p×B°Ð/ °ÀN!
°à"°à#à$à%°°€°ÐІœ@@ñÿ@NormalCJ_HaJmH sH tH L@L Heading 1$$@&a$5>*OJQJ\N@2N Heading 3¤d¤d@&[$\$5CJ\aJF@BF Heading 4¤d¤d@&[$\$5\DA@òÿ¡DDefault Paragraph FontVióÿ3VTable Normal :Vö4Ö4Ö laö(kôÿÁ(No List:>@ò:Title$a$5OJQJ\<B@< Body Text$a$OJQJ>@> Footnote TextCJaJ@&@¢!@Footnote ReferenceH*4@24Header ÆàÀ!.)@¢A.Page Number4 @R4Footer ÆàÀ!<þ¢a<Ä1ï Char Char_HmH sH tH >þ¢q>1⁄2@ó Char Char2_HmH sH tH ù@ @ "ÿÿÿÿ()KLUVû‰1⁄2 3⁄4 ¿ Û ö " # % & / 0 1 < = > A ̃0€€ ̃0€€0€€ ̃0€€ ̃0€€ ̃0€€ ̃0€€ ̃0€€ ̃0€€ ̃0€€ ̃0€€ ̃0€€ ̃0€€ ̃0€€ ̃0€€ ̃@0€€00 ̃@0€€Iˆ00× ̃@0€€Iˆ00× ̃@0€€Iˆ00× ̃@0€€Iˆ00× ̃@0€€€ ̃@0€ $$$$$'VX@ @? '!•!
Ôÿ•€¢ ̈5;=Ea± ag‡ " # % & > A LS‰Y " # % & > A 33_„‹‹- ÃÌ'-;hl ̃ ̃ çüˆ‰1⁄4 1⁄2 1⁄2 " # % & < < > A T W " # % & > A æaD ̧XJ.ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ„„„0ýÆ„^„„`„0ýo(()€„ì„ ̃þÆì^„ì`„ ̃þ.‚„1⁄4„LÿÆ1⁄4^„1⁄4`„Lÿ.€„Œ „ ̃þÆŒ ^„Œ `„ ̃þ.€„\ „ ̃þÆ\ ^„\ `„ ̃þ.‚„, „LÿÆ,^„,`„Lÿ.€„ü„ ̃þÆü^„ü`„ ̃þ.€„Ì„ ̃þÆÌ^„Ì`„ ̃þ.‚„œ„LÿÆœ^„œ`„Lÿ.æaDÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ1⁄4>bÁ yåxòsû&ä3⁄4@ ¶ E lt "#ï\1⁄4=üVi‹sLd ,E#3B$)m&Å{-'0 w5u:Ðd;tv<›$@×B3H>(KHM*M«KNPaO0R‹CSOT0sWX[>!
\r\^=8^(i`¦>a>ab}Hd\eo,e+gak)0n±TnIzn°q8qËEs"tõ wx zíTzaY{þX|Èp€Ÿ0†P8†ðŠ]ŠuŽM7/Ž-"z{"ÓjTM+¢1⁄2h¢ðA«-¬Jt±Ûz25 ́ëK ́Þlμ†1wR1⁄2o`¿¤@À ŃEÆ-ȈÊÀÍ›IÎ-}Î";Ϧ`Ï,Ñê1ÑO Ò8Ú¶ÜQ%Ý]UäžåÂæhIçÆ8êëërìâjí>îÄ1ï[wï5ðèpñ1⁄2@ó~tõìCö($÷1⁄2hù(1⁄2 A aTssÿ@€X X LlbX X @ @@ÿÿUnknownÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿGÿ:àCxÀ ÿTimes New Roman5€Symbol3&ÿ:àCxÀ ÿArialA&‡ŸTrebuchet MS5&ÿ>á[`À)ÿTahomaK,‡ŸBookman Old Style"1ˆðÐho'6‡'›6§m'6‡$~‡~‡!ðààx ́‚‚4 2ƒqðÜHXðÿ?äÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ2ÿÿHON BLE SRI JUSTICE BCMS & PSS SECTIONuserþÿà...ŸòùOh«'+'3Ù0ˆ ̃ ̧Äàìü 8DP \hpx€äHON'BLE SRI JUSTICE BCMS & PSS SECTIONNormaluser11Microsoft Office Word@Øu@:¢W}©Ð@Æ(Ÿ}©Ð@ I¥laÐ~‡þÿÕÍÕœ.
"-+,ù®0hp ̃ ̈° ̧ÀÈÐ Øúä HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH æHON'BLE SRI JUSTICE BTitle þÿÿÿþÿÿÿ !"#$%þÿÿÿ'()*+,- þÿÿÿ/012345þÿÿÿýÿÿÿ8þÿÿÿþÿÿÿþÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ Entryÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÀFð'€©laÐ:€Data ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ1Tableÿÿÿÿ¬WordDocumentÿÿÿÿ;"SummaryInformation(ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ&DocumentSummaryInformation8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ.CompObjÿ ÿÿÿÿ ÀFMicrosoft Office Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.