Gilla Vinoda v. Guduru Narsima Reddy,

HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO Criminal Revision Case No.537 OF 2017 ORDER:

Heard both sides and perused the impugned order.

2. It is the submission of the leaned counsel for the revision petitioner/ accused Smt.Gilla Vinoda(wrongly mentioned as if G.Vinod in the order of the lower Court) that as part of the defence, while admitting her signature on the so called cheque in question, stating her husband S.Tirupati Reddy availed handloan for his business necessities from one G.Ratnamachary and said G.Ratnamachary obtained blank signed cheques of the accused from her husband while lending and the same is misused and to establish the same in support of the crossexamination version of P.W.1-complainant claims as if accused borrowed the amount and issued the cheque and as if there is a legally enforceable debt.

Once he claim that he filled the contents of the cheque, the presentation memos for encashment that were returned dishonoured, if those are being summoned through the Bank Manager concerned of the presenting bank of the complainant, that will reveal the writing is that of the complainant with reference to the writing in the cheque or not. For that, application filed is under Section 311 CrPC, no doubt, instead of section 254(2) CrPC. A mere wrong quoting of provision is no way fatal however what the lower Court in the impugned order observed is that the requirement of summoning the bank Manager of State Bank of Hyderabad with statement and account of the complainant right from January, 2007 looks absurd and quite unnecessary and the same is now impugned.

3. The accused has right to adduce defence evidence also to rebut any presumption available against her in discharge of the burden which

includes to establish in any manner the alleged cheque in question was not issued in favour of the complainant much less for any legally enforceable debt.

4. Once such is the case, it is immaterial as to who filled the cheque contents in question but for to say whether it is filled by the accused or not, if at all it is for the accused who issued the cheque to explain the writings therein once admitted the signature and for that what she claims is that the blank cheques of her obtained by her husband and handed over to Ratnamachary, one of the witnesses of the complainant herein and said Ratnamachary and complainant colluded together in using the blank cheques by filling contents.

The summoning of the bank account of the complainant for that purpose serves no use so also by summoning the bank cheque presentation slip if at all contain the writings of the complainant, the remedy of the accused if at all is to ask the Court if at all she is sure of the contents of the cheque contains the writings of the complainant, to obtain by Court for the purpose of comparison u/ sec.

73 of the Indian Evidence Act (for short, 'the Act'), the specimen writings of the complainant in the same pattern of the contents contain in the cheque and if the Court is able to compare it, it can do within its power under Section 73 of the Act, if not, to send to handwriting Expert to form an opinion and therefrom come to conclusion in its determination as if that is the contention which may serve in discharge of the burden lies on the accused to show the blank cheques subsequently cause filled by the complainant to make use of for the ultimate appreciation of the facts by the Court.

5. Having regard to the above, with liberty to the petitioner to have any such remedy, the revision is dismissed for no grounds to

interfere with the impugned order. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. ________________________ Dr. B. SIVA SANKARA RAO, J Date: 14.03.2017 Vvr