P Nagesh Rao vs Sri Muralidhar Rao on 14 December, 2010

[Cites 10, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

P Nagesh Rao vs Sri Muralidhar Rao on 14 December, 2010

Bench: C.R.Kumaraswamy

T'

PASSED IN CRL.RE\f.PETN.NG.232/2808 ON THE FILE OF CITY
FAST TRACK (SESSIONS) JUDGE, EAST TRACK COURT-IT,
BANGALORE CITY AT DOCUMENT ¥\iO.4, 

THIS cam IS COMING ON FTDR Aomisslogy%HVisTj"p}2wf,

THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: 

This Criminal Petition is fiigd ;ii{aj:ai_»'r"~ssségit-ioriii;i.§§2.,¢i=

Cr.P.C. by the learned Cou;;s'e.14__.for ti':;3_T';3etiti0r'it§j; 

set aside the order dated TV'24_:V:(35_.u2O£§8.  in CC.
z\io.333s/2006 on the  af.'_'x\riI:1"x:ga.a'ii'.«.cMM arid xx Add!.
Smaii Causes 3f.;dge at__  set aside the

order datedf'   Criminai Revision

Patitic),i.ri--"--:'"*.i!av"T<3i' City Fast Track Court
 Court~IE, Bangaiore City at

Docs.sme:$i"ti«.!\io..4,VV' ._ 

    havéTiiTéTard Seamed Csuasai for the aatétiorsar

  ass-2/i}1s§i.§.VT'a.;s"é&a-riaiiieé Caazrisei far the rssaaadeat.

  .'""E"E'2e accused has féiesi an apgiéctatéaa under

2 S§ii2.'§;§f®€T as as the Efiéiaf: Evééanca Ac; 3322. Tia siaias

A";;§'":a§tA Etna camsiaénant has ﬁéeé a faise prévase aamaéaéat

./"1

 "



against him fer an offence punishabie under Section 138 of

the Negotiable Instruments Act. He furthet states tij'.a~ti the

compiainant has given his evidence as PW}. 

cross examination by the accused, the c.Q_ni;3iai%§ianit has 

stated that the contents of Ex.P§i"-->AA»cheq._de_ is 

accused befere him. As per defeir:ce"--of the."_a.cc'i;seVd--,i'the'r.L

contents of Ex.PI ---- cheque"'isrfi.:ied by_i:he:".=cd"ii;§aiaénant. V

So to find out the tru'thV,& it  aV\n"d_é necessaity to refer
the said cheque to handw.fiVtin'g'jiekp.aft.f.'.:'VT'h_e opinion of the
expert is ve:js,"'nr;Lich isiiecfassar~;AA"tei_"-decide the case of the

accused tin  4"--ff}1IAé'._i%i,i&";iiiﬁE3r" states that if this

appiic:}3_tio«r§* is'a"§ii.Qiz§edTg"ia.§'"hardship wouid be caused t0 the
compiaénaajt; 50:45'  hand, if the application is not

aiie;§§§}ed;. accuisadivwiii he past ta great hardship; therefare,

 e.:av:',f.£;;"u.»':e_v"'°a'*:i.i:;%E'.3aVA5*i+*'~s ta refer Exﬁi ~» cheque to the handwriting

e:€ja_e>rt"«'Vi_;e_t,'~;'"¥3"eretssic $cience Labotatdrgg ivéadivaiaf

8a%i'gaEvc€te'i"te find out the sand writing ass aisa the

  c<3§3te:ét's written as the cheese w- $2591

4-,<~¢/



4. The complainant has filed his ebjecticms in the

"mat Court as under:

The appficatiee ﬁled by the a<:cus.ed.'fuh§s__h'4".j'h:et'

maintainabie. This appiication is fiied _tQ"V:"d-taghﬂoh the__ "=

proceedings. The main groundszlet acctts-eici"fg>r: 'fi'ije§

this appiécation is that the cheque Acjheestioh.-'ts wifihtteha

by the accused, it was gi{feVe'»to the._t:Gthpl.'e§eaVnt for

security purpose to vafv'e_Ei !c;'a':cé_'VAa-ht1,'V"the saicivhhhchheque has
been misused by the con€;§_lai',eeriVt..-'«..He«'.i'Vf.*.§_tfther states that
the accused himseif has adthitteci"~fh.e.__fact that the cheque

ie dispute"HEsT;°'£§,%§'.e:ed.  He further states that

admittedly; the'.ehequ4'e'tV.§}rdEspute issued frem the account
maintaieeti "by V"theaV.'a»c.c'{;ssed with his bank and further

eeceésecia.eemihtsﬁhvat  bears his signature and he has aise

 ed.;'h§ttVee.%thAé--t, he himseif has heheed ever the Cheque to

 %:h'e._Va:e%*r:«§5_§veEeeht, The accused eeméts that eemeee setiee

wees?' se':?§z.e?t£".:te him eed he me not reeéy te that eetéce. "me

  ee::_.esee7 et the eree ef cress exemiheeee ef ewe, he nearer
"'se'Igg5'estee; te em that he hae giveh eieeki cheque te

 "'"cemeEemeet am he never euestéeeed es te whe fiiéee the



 

disputed cheque. Therefore, in this baci<groLmd___ after

compietion of evidence, the accused ﬂied this a..{3'p.}:i£",atien

to forward the cheque to expert oniy to drag'§Ve%€ t'i§'ej*- 

and harass the complainant. The.te»fore,_--'th'e'*:e_ee€ptaihavhVt""

prays to dismiss the appiécation. 

S. The sum and sLJtV_b'Stanc:eA'efV: the   

Triai Court is as tinder;

The Triai Ceuvrté-....V:f'1@AS"¢4.tF3'53?"?;$E-':3'.:S<?,¢tiee 28 ef the
Negotiabie Instremeht's~v:..At,t;V'- perusing the
applicatiohédt the cheque and
sighat§:re_ beVEe'hg:'$..Vite>»ti1peﬁ've._ccuSed, What is materiaé is the
sighatetetjef  maker and ﬁﬁi the body of

w:E4§§j§h'g;A. The*z*ej§e%e; :§}8f'tjS§§'ig the aepémaétieh fééeé under

 'i3ettIL§Q E'*iVA.éF5"A.i§~f the Eeeéah Exsédehce Act and ah-3e eejeetiees

.53???'a'§'e{§'~_vt._re~ty;"§:g er; the aecéséeh Es: the ease of S Q

i'«?t}';tais'a'a?".V'§z's ﬁahek G Y reieertee' in {ER 23:13: EAR

2  A2§':{",ETA?, the "§'rEa% Cetstt ﬂsméeeee the §§§§§£&'{§®§"E fétea tshdeé'

fﬁeetéeh 437 at the indies: E%fE§eE1C€: Act,

5':
=C..w'



6

6. Feeiieg aggrieved by the same, the accused

has preferred Créminai Revision Petétioe before the Cout'%ft"»of

Sessions. The revisiohai Court rejected thew:-"e\;'i.s_%'ojh,IV"

petition on the ground that the revision iris i.hot'~i

maéntainabie.

7. Since the revisioi*iai__ Cotjrfhes   V

f'€\fiS§{)F1 petition fiied by thei4i"'~e;Ceosed','~. fhe'%er'o§re, the
accused has preferred   cheiliehgiog the
said order.    A» V. A»

8* _",{t  Coensei for the
petitiooernthatiiti§.e: 'reQ_§'s:{o'eeii dismissed the revision
;'Jetitioh_  as it Weven though the Court
admitted    notice to the respondent.

The:§efoa*e, the ..r_ei;ViséoVriei Court shoeid not have oismissed . the re3g9isii.onA'o;_et%tioe after iepse of twe years. A "§i~tj'e"'eese of the oetitiorier is that the eetitieeer eee' re-sooefdeot herein are reietives, es the resoeeoeet 2 "ise.s éotéeeeeiei :.'Z{':»?%§i'j§"§§§"t§§ tee eieeted to reise e 'teen free":

AA'-eieiriigete fiheoeier to steet: e eotet Quﬁéﬁﬁﬁﬁi §%eee tee erivate financier reoeiees a security fee the éeee, the

4.=ﬂ./ cheque in dispete was issued by the petitioner in e___b1ani< states. Except the signature, ail othet contents.'a»te««.fE%~%ed up by the respondent. it is an admitted the course of cross examination .spe,c_§fic _sLJ'ggesvtio'ras'_'Ahaared' been put to PW1 that exceptas~E':Vgn'Ta't.t:'r'€; aVi%:""t"ot:ﬁ.e§r contents are fined by the'c_o":°nplairiant..

has been denied byzethe v§:_QtVn'g3la'é'n_Vant.\'t ,,,J.T1,.?_7@jne3'ore, the accused was constrained-i:o:-- under Section 45 of the EvEd'ence to hand writing e>gpe':~t: iohtearned Counsel for the _o_etEt§bVn1er:'V'1-::j;h'at_j'.' of the Negotiabie only to inchoate stamped instrurnents stamped instrument, As the chegne*~ do n"o*t..;ed_;;Ere am: starne cinder the stamp Act, » ;sect§o:a'«2%.VA:'E's not attracted to e Cheque. it is speciféceéiy H '-se~bmvv§'tte'd._i:n.et the words used En Sectéee 23 is "A eager stae}p'e5d"%n accerdance with Ems seieténg te ;?xEegot%aeie " " §;:.st:'ué"nentf' Thus the ereeéséoe is eetegoréceé that Sectéee 27§2'§"Ae;3eE§es te enéy these negotieete éestnsments which ere " stamped. As the Cheque does not require am; stereo, gﬁ' Section 20 of the Negotéabie Instruments Act, 18___81, is iraappiicabie. In support 01' his Conteetioe, he re1E.e~s.e:e.ri'~the ruiing Er": the case of C T]oseph Vs I V Phiiip' AIR 2001 Keraia 300 at Head Note »A,«it rs}§é1ed'reast'tuéaer»<e "

"(A) Negotiable Instr't;mer1t$ 1881), 5.20 - App1i«:'a';e.i_}ity 'CheqLEVe'SA§.d.QVIfft.:'§ "

require any stamp undetrﬁtamp not appiicable because it.~a'bpr:V§.ej4s2:0-n_i'y with"'r'egard to inchoate nege'tié_b%e"i_n§:t:'urhehrzt§;;»»'f He aIso_su_bmits""ti':a't e~.aen_ where" the signature is adméittetiv brytifthett§c}c:zrse.tj1' but'._iuf"'he disputes as to who fined the ceeteete ef:'t§_e._9:i1.e'qt:e; the cheque has :0 be referred to gar} harid x:§Jriti§'§.'g evxgﬁert as the accused is entétied to fair " ' {tr.§.a.':§. sin sr.u.pp0rt'O"f"hVis contention; he reiies on the decision ~:fiee_eT_j.. ef G=Semesfmser Rae E/5 Saminen; 3*¢:§§{gee§?§§f§:§--rV' Qee enﬁ enether regeertee' fr: 25369 x SA§{*f:}?'rﬁf:3a£} 529, it E5 3339 eenteheeﬁ by the Eeereed Ceueseé fer the 'eetitéener that presumption under Sectierz 139 of the gr J..-

':;-/' Negotiabie Iiistrumeiits Act in favour of the hoider of Cheque is only with regero to the existence ofja»-!_e_ige!1y recoverabie debt. Section 139 of _ Instruments Act, 1881 does not suggest v'_*!§'t%*..-- to thiev. execution and issuance of cheque. itis?fuiirthhec<:'o~~ni:entie:§ that the finding recorded' -by incorrect fer the reason that tiéheterxm "'in'te:r*_i'o:ctitory order"

in Section 397(2) ofi::E;;?.ce'._ hasi"b~-eeiiused in a restricted sense and notin any....btojad'v--o'r::_ai9t'i'sti'c--.{senses It mereiy denotes that; o?:der'sv:"ofs._a ;_3j_iJ;Ve_eVi'y""ir'1't'erEn'i or temporary nature whivch'::-.oo:»»not'_ the important rights or the _:ieAbi§':is:e$'«iuef, "i-hei parties. Any order' which substa'ni;ia--iiy ai?f.ectsthe"»«ri~ght of the accused; of decides certain rights 'oi? t'iie'«..;;§?arties caiinot be said to be an ie.té3rio€:utoi*y"ei*;dver so as to oer e revisiee egeiiist tiiat 'iise_ee«:ise that ezouie be egeieet the very eejiect which 'f;_etii*ie.o=.i:.hefi;:ie_sis tor iesertion of this eertieuier erevisieti in §;e'i:tiee 3i;i?ic::ei the €r;§i£c iii Si£§;£}{}i'"§: ef iiis Qﬁiiiiéiiiiﬁiig iie i*eiie.s"".oti'4'i:iie eecision in tiie eeee ei eztier éiéeffi erie' AA §tfieie" ifs State of iiieryerie end Steers reeortee 5}'?

5), _ ..

ix"/..

10 (1977) 4 SCC 13?'. Para 6 of the said rutieg reads as under:

"6. Let us now proceed to Enterp--r{e{'t'i=é3L~~.: -1- provision of Section 397 against the.

background of these facts.;"V§u'b>sect§o.;:':

Section 39.7 of the 19723 :1.?§o'dVe extracted thus: _V V ' The powers of re\}'i's.i:o:: confe':red'v'oy':s;ub-- section (1) sha§%¥":2Qt bed"éXe:fcisec3 in reiatioa to any Enteriocutorf orde*.<__ gi;-aéssedi any appeai, inquiry, triai or Qt":--erjpro'c.ee_d"'i%é'g.;'"

"Ehe"ja:;::;'ha'EhA iqu'estfi'o§§':-"'wh.Ech fans for dete'r4;;n'i:;'2--aif'i'o'e.._ as to what is .cdj?f1%:o'§atio:1-. «'of 't'¥§'e~VV-'term "im:er§ocutory :'1oro;.e:*". a:;:'»-_ép§;'é'aaEi::g' én subsection (2) of séctiéoﬁ 39.?' \§{raich«--..E§af's aray revision or such an ._orc1ea:"' 'High Ceczrt. The term ax Eai:er§ocuVfor.y...cdrder" Es; a term of Wei: known _§:e:ga--E.udségnifécance and does not erased: any 'vse':='%ve:.s$f'V-dffficuity. it': has bees used En various svtaéfaces inciudéng the Code of Cévéi ?z"ocedcsre; ' .. ietiess Patent of she High Courts and either EEE<:e Vssamiesc 3:: Webstees ﬂew ifsfocid Séctéeeery A "§::i:%e:"%ecu"€e:*3z"' has sees dieféaed as as ﬁféﬁg?' ache: than ﬁes: decision. Secédeé cases have ,2" .:"/K,' ii iaid down that interlocetory orders to be appealabie must be those which decide rights and iiabélities of the parties conce%'ﬂ;§!T1_Q a particular aspect. It seems to us t.het :"

term "interlocutory order" in mSbVectior:"i39Z?'.1:('f.2)""<;2f the 1973 Code has been trisedﬁrtj;a'.o?re$tri.:cted.__pVAV sense and not ie any broad oz<__art§_stic V' mereiy denotes orders--_,§of..V_a purely _Ehter'i'rr1""'o:' temporary nature which__e1"o.V:hot_»decidelor touch the impertaet fer1,§veb.i%litie$V"orvv the parties. Any' ordeVhr.p.'whi'ch' affects the rightS':)_f the certain rights. hheeaid to be an interipctgtory "e:~d4e'r='.'iv'rso"*a-5 bar a revision to :thehVH§g.:EV1_Ce:ert ehgaiﬁhst tthatvhorder, because that "w_ou1'd \__2e'ry object which formed théer-c4_b=asie'~ i"or.--V§'h.sertion ea' this particular

-m"0vEsxzQ.n;'Ee" Shhfectiverz 397' of the 1973 Cede.

" "$7-he::.,A for" """ 'éestaeee, «orders summoeéng

-xsf;§i:n'ee$'esg edjeereieg cases, passing erders for « "pea._ee§é:é%g for repeets aed eech ether stepe Er; €:_"§:§§ efhthe peheérrg §§"O€@€§§I'§§,, may he deuet:

" ameee: te érrteréeeutergr ereeee egeéeet which n ee revisiee week; Eéee eeeer Seetiee 3§?t2) er the 19?} Cecéeﬁ Eu: erefere which ere eeefttere ef memeet epe which affeeé: er eegeeéeete the 3 .

my rights ef the accused or a particuiar aspect of the triai caneet be said to be EnterlocutoryT"'»s. erder so as to be eetsirzie the purview revisioeal jurisdiction of the High CGt3Ft.5ﬁ '* V' He aiso relied en the __;*:.a.li,n_g m Kamaiammal vs C K Mohanan ;'an0i'_'er:;other~feptjfifedirj 2008(2) Civif Law J0urnaip2L5'Z_%at i-{eases iﬁete helm'-L' as under:

"(A) Negetia':;ieAct, 1881,, Section 139 -- P:r~e:su--rfavptE'on,_% nature

- ?_Pre;SsL1'mptiQr%_ En """"~---respect of V"issuaeiee/é:§:ecQ't.i,ee" o:f'"e"c'?1eque not erevédecl *for'-- ' V V' ., "-s._ "$ectic>e 139 -

'isstsatnce'/e5<~ecsjtie,sti;erevving" G? a cheque beieg' s1%iost.v"reEeve'r:wt factor En an effence under Section ':'.'5%8-~~+=««~ in absence of a seeciﬁz:

.,e';='r3v%,e3'e§§ aéiewéeg sueh eresemetiee Court not 1 "E:?5§'~tj._e;e"sve'me tee iegreeienz at the effeeee ~« vmsgléfeettieni reeeéree :e be erevee by tee ~~ Vteteeeeetéee -» Qnixg pereeee fair which cheque ée Eeeeieee be tee eeéeer eiieeseef ie ee ereeumee ee "fee eéeeeeree e? a debt er E§ee%E§t;\g"' «~=~ Exereeeien "received" not eeéeg the; . {re se of" " » _ synonymous with the expression "issued"

meanieg "executed" -- Both exptessEons..__ cennoting differeet acts by different persoes'-4._4i_i'-..V and may be at different piace and time__;3'i'sof;e.'._j:

Presumption confined only to pt§r_p'esevjV'_cot' cheque --- Court not competer:t.to--"_:

presumption that cheque is-_ by virtue of Section 3.53-9_ eve'r1__'i"f sigr1a'tiu2re4_ cheque admitted --- fert'h'seV::r;i.the arg_urnte'ntsVttieVti a biaek signedVehecgue.r-case;§3e"'-presuéfhed be "executed/issuedffor:ptiiye; cii--Vs[Vctitarf,ge of debt etc., tinder Secti.e.ri;:'_1.3§._Vcenr"i'ot'mgteccepted - further;"sp§rppie::__biaoi€ 's.éA'g:j'ié--edy_._'c:Viieque cannot give Vte'_f'§5!yii itpup in absence by 1 'is'p'et:iif§%;5. :ai§eéigetio's1AVV't'e "effect. "' Leiec-met? Cfoutvritseifor the petitioner aiso reiies en the d.e'e%.sip%§ to tt'§e"*c:e.s_eA.:.:2f 9 Venegepef Vs Medan :5 Saratov' t..;epg;:eeyc:}§iAIR 2009 sc see at para 1% arze 23; it Es £"§e'Ee es estee:

Hing: Seetéeo 33% ef tee est teees:

":39 §3'§"%$i.,§§"'ﬁ§§§®?'% in feyezce ef tzeieesz w it S?"i;§?§ ee etesemee; ueéese the eeetrecy is proved that the treieer of a cheque received '<,M"'/ 14 the cheque of the nature referred to in Sectioe 138 for the discharge, in whole er in partvQf_h"'»t. any debt erether iiabifity." ' '

20. Inciisputabiy, in v§ew_.._.e:f"'~.. decisions of this Court in tiﬁﬁhshna 't]a:".,ar:;::§'ib1;C~',§.,,i'.» L"

Bhat (supra), the initiai complairaant. The presUrn.ptior§'raEsed ShVrf'fa,j»'o1;t of the hotder of the '£i'heii;ue :h"ust':"i:»e tiept confined to the Vn*:aV_tterst'i:c=.tete6-.thea'eb'y; "the presumption to the extent that theVA.wch:e<;ue---- for the disci"aar*g_"e'A";';1f' de'bt':.'l'iahi.ifity which is requE::reci':_t«:>{ the compiainant. in at.5as.eAV"c}.tt.f€1;iIs;~Vna'tjt;a'=e', 'however, it is essentiatiy ;e__qu_e--stiVe':#,e.f._ ' ' He uét3«-st) vreVtie_dVAA.r;h'the ruiing in the case of Krishna Bi'2e2i'«v.taf$;«v£:3ai°tat:"e;/5 G Hegde reperted in at Head Nate A; it is heid as eneer:

_ Negeﬁabée Ehstremente Act (26 ef ,'§f8V>81.'}x $139 w ﬁresumetéee tsede: ---~ Seetierz :3? :"Y't8£'8§'\;f reésee gteeumetien ée fetieur at §"';Q§d$;"" at cheqee that same ﬁes been ieguee for éiseharge 0? any ﬂeet es' ether Eiebééity - / "'- Mr' .»-

13 Existence of legaily recoverable debt w is; eot a matter of presumption under $3.139."

10. Learned Counsel for the respondee_t'*~~s:Js'e.tij"itje;:v"

that accused who is the matemai uncle of had' borrowed a hand Ioari of Rs.6,00,0:Q0/geﬁfj. the discharge of which he had.___issU'er_ih'a che.§.uVeV"for V same amount on 31.08.2035, 'V\}J?'7i.ii'iI'Ii"!_VV\?r'v'i"iéi'r. eiresehtedi was returned with an endor:sem_er~§t. 'j--§f'iei'h:':1.*;:i..»VVi'i'risiifﬁcienti' and iii spite of issuance of ""eVe'AA'i~T._':iS-§'O9.2005, the petitieiier--ee4cii:s4e'§.i.iﬁ/Va:-awthoig due ehdet the che_q_ee;..V.V of PW1, no suggestion eJVe'j¥3.'vVteieute:V.Vte/..,_ihe_*woevtitioeer--accesed that he had issoede the tespoheeet and as to wheﬁiied the-» eoeteets of the cheque. The eeeesed got ,'tiinfise!§'exar'n_ined as 3W1. Even in the chief examination, ifife-i'__i_"ies"v;ri?'et_ efi*iE:§g:3e:'ee e wete ebeet the ieseeeee et eieeie ehev:iLie._"fet':'tiie eerpese of seeerity ef e ieaizi in hie eteee 4".,'~e::»:ee"iiee.tiee, ize eeieits that the etieeee iseete tzie "'._sig:2ete§e azee eise aiiat fee eieeeeit eeeeee eager tee eiéeeiie ' V' "te the reseeeeeriti i-ie. fertiéer seemite tiéet emit; wite ee Ky' 16 mterztion to drag en the proceedéngs, at the stage of arguments, in spite of admitting the signature onfithge disputed cheque, the accesed filed an appiicatiiee."_e'nde*ri"

Section «es of the xhaiah Evidence Act, 1872tt,'pr.aVy$i§s reference of Ex.P1 - the cheque to the hand'"wri1tAi:'1wg Forensic Science Laboratory,,.Mediwa'1:a,'"--?3anggVa!'t;.rie' to :=sha V out as to who has written th'et'~v.eentVents~..eftihenfgheque. Learned Magistrate apnvtviteattdn en 07.06.2008. The csmp1a:tn¢ht;f his Written arguments 1na--!:tef'\;ve.s arguments of the accuse, %psmh preferred by the accused was A'avt1so_uVdi'smisseda _ -

it is'eVAl%se th-eVAc§3'et;e§'s'stEon of the learned Ceensel for the5'A:.respewedeVnt*'«that» the inherent sewers has te be ' e§<'ere§s_ef:%t §=eé*e.__e;ear:eg%y and sheete eet be resorted to hke é'efetee3i'eVfj*a§f:i-eeei es" reeéséee, She further submits ieei the a<:eeee;7e.. eyaeing edeeizee the ségeatere es': tee eheeee end eitseg iihe ésseeeee ef the cheeee %::::« ihe eemeieéneetf eé; ieis feeietee stage ef ereceeeéegs hee made tee eeeééeeiéen L./' 17 seeking for reference of E)-LP1 to FSL onty with en %!'"1t€f'}'Ci€I)§°'i to drag the proceedings and also to escape the admieeion of execution of the cheque.

Learned Counsel for the respo11de'nt.'eié o'rergelihesfon. the decision in the case of Satisri'.Jér§fa'nthIz'aVI' Pankaj Mashruwa/a and anotrﬁer.reportedjn'.:1"§29'6~VCrI.L J 3099 at para 8 it is heiazyas "8. ...... ,.Thus-; 'the cleariy admitteo « h . V_ 'eontentéon needs «no ud~er.a_t1io_n a_§:Vdf« 'regeczea. Ape rt:

from:this§._"feVct,'V"no_:"Ie:;.r.&:pr.evi:§eSthat %n case of %:':";ejir:,2n"%e'n"i~*'entire bedy has to x£=~J4§fitté:n'iVjbV-~'»,1::mvekef---or'drawer on¥y. What is materiaiv 1&3" ei'gVAea:t}e~rVe'V'o€ drawe: or maker and

--.pot iwriiihg hence queetion of body :g»rfitiV§1Ag hes'ee--~~3ége§f%eencef' S%'§é'r:":'a:E:'i::":Q reééee or: decision 2:': Ehe eeee ef ﬁeaxi €he;é;;e;_ ﬁfe Séezfe emf eeozher reeerieef 5:7 553 (2988; BC eé pere 3% E': ée heie ee eeee:*:

$4' 18 ''2S. It is also not possible to agree with the contention that the determinatiee ef the-'"-. time when the signature was amended A4 somehow explain the fact that the pet_it_iéone{rj..,j:F1- has discharged the entire liability the cheque was presented %"o'%M;5a3.rm"ent.« two factors need to be noticed.

although the petitioner'-.._clain'1s.'thatf:hA'e_j.has:3 closed his account in Zoliiilhitseif and these blank cheques. were 2l'ha*n.ﬁj4ehi"s._..over« "to 7the complainant prion?' to'tlgtggiﬁiivnew"'did:not write to the com;3~1.aEnant~'ieforn:Ein'~g_ 'th_e;"'*.Vc'o'n1plairaant that theaj:coen:t&hacE"Cbeen "c'les.e<::l. Seceedly, althoegi::€"'v_§7i1e":7clai"n1jecd"' tll&3f"'--:bhe ' has discharged ,'the"'§ia.:bE_lit§;i'fV'V'ad'reil.ttedl§f"this is onty an erai ass'erti'on"of,1the'hVt._;5et_'iti'one:" and me receipts evi'oerlc§VnVg .t'hwe»-oayément of Rs.8 iakb have _'"beenxprec£uced"'%nTthe Court" it is oeintecl out foxy %ieemed""c'o'uese% for the teseeedent @6632 the stage ef framéng of charge, tee had claimed eefere the tidal Ceert §;t:'a%:§3*ee had with héne the receipts evédeecéee " rélizeeymentl However, téii dete he such eeceéei: hes eeen eredeceex ﬁne eeedee 'wit: ee the accesee to shew tee: is': fact he has eisctzargee tee Eiabiiitgz ezzee eséer te the ereeeetetéen ef ;"/ E9 the cheques for payment. That cannot be proved by the report of a handwriting expert_..._ Section 13$, N1 Act, which raises a rebu_tta%..4_:'i~. presumptions in this behalf, would some other positive evidence to be iea"«'._hy.th:ei"--'% accused to show that hefiirrhas amount to the compiainant. Intether'horde;-st..,.« merely because there is a"C_FSi_ reportivivthattig Show that the hahdwt"i«ti":"*:--g, the .i_n§<s:anoa:4'Vth'e'V time of fiiingzothe part%'cL.i_:Aars§ is different from Vtizat oithevvi'.s':"g't:va:tures, that by itself wiil not go 'tov:f'o.ro'fQeV ?;:ha't~~.t'he_';ar:cuseo has dischargeti his i;A_aE:>i::iit:\:.r to.viia'tjg:isv'thVe tompiainaht evei:"b'efoi§e.t_he .{:;ate.._of*-.tt:ev presentation of the tjhese retasanis, there is no merit in pe't§tioper for sending the cheques to for the opinion of the ' » hAaodf{N:.iVtiog'" e><.perztf' _VSh.e-he-Eso reﬁies on the decision in the ease of K 1"'«£;a.1<$f§'f?§a%'{?eA§:%V'Vs S Kevioﬁaooirae reporteo .55'? 20$: r°f.:1f';§§?4:§, at téeao eete ano para 8 it is tzeéo as tiiidﬁfi "E"s:Eoer"z::e ate: it of ESZFEL 34% ~ Expett evidence M Qase of oistzerzour of eheotse -» as ,=/~ "

3;»-"

2% No.O8SS71 dated 31.83.2005 drawn er: Syndicate Bank, Nandiper Branch. The said cheque was presented.T"'%'aTt ctearance an 31.8.2005. The cheque was the endorsement 'funds insufficient'. it is the Caisevvvthea» H accused that the cheque was signed ae'd« the comptainant by way of secutity, Th1»s~Vch--etcit5e the cempiainant so as to enat>ie--.t:'e:h'i»rn ta.ra%.se_iVeae':~.a'ns~ed:nt. In the instant case, lega!...eot%ee'"vta_s. i*s»st1ed'tc;~the_.ac:c:used and he has replied that the cheque was delévterfed ithurthetr there is ne agreement"---..b'r"3'..__ Ci(J{1jtl_!v;T'r~'.-":VF1't"_ ""exer:uted between the cempIajea_nt an:iV.atfeuse%d'«t_e estabiish that the cheque was delivered any Way-afssecatty The a%nt~v~.a.e«d puredse of ehaetéeg Sectiee 138 ef §'%éwegeti'a.ia§e.'"Etésttameats Act, 3881; ta to have effective ba__n'§<%eg; ft;:s*I1:r":i§%ee and te make St.5?'€ that eheaue ttaeaaetiee Tie eeitlaraiabie aee te C§"'i@C§< Eseuanee ef Cheques it: ééaettaeard raaeees" tattheet earefei ttteegtet. added te ttas atteetraieéeg issue at cheques wtteeut maiatainieg the

-E .

ef ,.:' sufficient funds in the account cf the person who issues the cheque.

13. in this case, the cheque has been the accused to the comptainaet without..ma§§ieg4"h'é<:.e'S$aA:y arrangements. As stated earlier, the e._b[j'eCtiTo'n "of:Seet'ioﬁ:T.: 138 of Negotiable Instrumeh*ts:"~~Act,Ah":88~1,AVa-Es5.t§'$et. the cheque transactions sheuid aspect cannot be ignored while Veo't1'si.o'et::ne1ttge.'e_pp1it:atioe filed under Section /v $5; the ceeteetéoh of the iearré'e«V:1'::;o§§:'h§'el.:fe;[=«..th~eV_ eetttiooher that E><.P1 is fiited by the'o'¢eft;Api:e:§naVe?t:"ae'd_'i'e otd'eI:ifo ascertain this aspect;

the cheqtie 'shoe'§"e..VbeV3ie'?erted to haedwritmg expert. Recerfd dixse-3..eses'tha':.V"eQ{..'o'suggestiee is put to PW1 as to W%.;§A:,Ei%;»§ed .,f;he '§(.':V'rg},'€£'.4.;'..i.--.1.§Via Even sf the cheqee ie referred E6 e$<:e'ert'§--.4ﬁne'-expert wiié examine the heeewritihg and ewe ht%e'"Vee%héee_..7' He eeneei: gave the eeéhiee whethey the etteeegeés eeiiveeee fee the eeeeeee ef eeeeréty er mete Teée .§eLe§;~_. hes te ee ieeeeeeeeetésg eeeaxeééehee erg eeeeeéeg ﬁevieeeee eefeee the tﬁei Ceeett i?'u§"t:§2e;r exeert eeieiee Es:

5? J"

23

hardly decisive and even inconclusive. Ii: is epénien based evidence and not evidence of fact. Therefore, evidenceef expert cannot come to the aid of accused in eeta.b4ii»el§'iti'g»""V. his case. Expert epinion cannot replace'__ée.,l;>stan£ive'-.1 evidence and it cannot be used', to»_"cqr:'Q[beret:e--ether evidence. Se-ctiee 20 of theV.ai'~&.egoti«a-b_l'e~-- Instr'u'm:e'nts}\ctv,i ' 1881, may not be apillécable r.ije€ii"seV_§fiii~,:.§'chV'}.lciVeé", not require stamping, In clieiqexe signed by the a<:cuseci,has complainant, hence, in my suggested for the conj_p_laiiaei¥.e:%;e ta make it complete for parties theegh it is not expres$lyt..%etated:.iAi§§eee':*«ci:e'<éisciosee the': Question put te PW,_;;i i:s.<:3f :;;iVenveV_%fia' naflteiiel. _ 'vﬁ§.'.i':¥..' -tiie Ceee ei er-iAeAMeAL AND means es. e:{if.eg;ei's§--:ie: ANB emees reeertee ie 1.993 CRLLML 1§4eZﬁ, ieiieeeie tee Seereme Cease iiee eeie ee feilews: 'ﬁcieéieei ?..£, :2 e? i§Z?e}; Secegz, 3§?'(3§ --~ Revieiee. ~ Seeee - Greer ea; iviegieeaie -«~ Revieiee egeiee: -~ Sieeaieeei by af 24 Sessions Court ~ Second revision against, before High Coert - Cannot be entertained in V exercise of its inherent powers under 8.482." i 3.5. The application filed by the Section 45 of Evidence Act, 1872 §,;~f';}e'3'er:tei.r;i t;gfe1ci"re1ai i Court. Feeiing aggrieved theaccueed"~_oAtefe§*t'eo'~ petition and the tevésioaai Cot,é'i=i:"'i*ejected.th.e:'sai'ne";"'Now again he has preferred. Crimina'i"Pe.titiVo'e.._invoékéeg«inherent jurisdiction of this Court. Vdiheie-o'nCe__.tbe_'£:oL_irt of Sessions has rejected ttieejevisiion §,oetiti«onj_j_agaii§1' i*e--agitating the same point. Fetition invoking Section 482 of the impugned orders oasseoviibgz eeeii as the revéstonai Court, if'; n*jv;..viev§4"'doee .n.otAAe_offeiVt from iefitmities. In that th:he":'m..ette'r,'i ainof"the oeimoe that ttsie is not a tit ease: t.e":.::fitei=tei<e% %'>fii:?i; the imoagoee orders, tea" a eV.ti'ée".é"eet;it§ E ease the toiiowtng: ®R§__E?g " 'Eiiie eemieai Petttioe e egsmtsseca .3, M, E.\.) if:

b) The abservations made herein shail not influence the 'mat Court whiée deciding the main case an merits.

Sci,/?"'?* ='}<bgn/'..

3iUi3@:GE ~ TiT;; Tfjf j j

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court