Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
G.V.Naga Durga Prasad vs P.Rami Reddy on 6 September, 2022
Author: K.Sreenivasa Reddy
Bench: K.Sreenivasa Reddy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2495 of 2019
ORDER:-
The Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed to quash the order dated 02.05.2017 in Crl.M.P.No.1126 of 2017 in C.C.No.148 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Railways, Guntur. A private complaint has been filed against the petitioner/accused under Sections 190 and 200 of Cr.P.C. r/w 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
2. At the point of jurisdiction, it has been transferred to Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Railways, Guntur and the same has been numbered as C.C.No.148 of 2013. Pending the proceedings, Crl.M.P.No.1126 of 2017 under Section 45 of Cr.P.C. has been filed praying the Court to send the Exs.P.1 and P2 and contemporary signatures to the second expert to compare the signature of the accused and 2 to pass necessary orders in the interest of justice. By order dated 02.05.2017, learned Magistrate dismissed the Crl.M.P.No.1126 of 2017 as devoid of merits. Against the said order, petitioner herein has filed C.R.P.No.88 of 2017. By order dated 29.11.2018, learned District Judge dismissed the same. Against the said order, the present petition came to be filed on the ground that the petitioner has got no documents available with him to show the contemporaneous signatures during the relevant period.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Courts below ought to have drawn attention on the main aspect of the petitioner that the signature contained on the disputed cheque not tallying with other signatures produced from the bank records.
4. Heard. Perused the record.
5. The defacto complainant has filed a private complainant in C.C.No.148 of 2013 on the file of 3 Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Railways, Guntur against the petitioner herein for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act. Apart from the same, the complainant also filed a Civil Suit in O.S.No.181 of 2013 on the file of Senior Civil Judge's Court, Mangalagiri, which was decreed in favour of the complainant. According to the complainant, on repeated demands towards discharge of the debt Under Ex.P.1 promissory note dated 12.10.2010, the accused has issued a cheque bearing No.551100 dated 15.11.2011 and as it was dishonored, thereafter, the present Criminal Case came to be filed.
6. During the course of the above matter, the accused filed a petition and sent the above disputed documents i.e., the disputed cheque as well as the disputed pronote along with specimen signatures in SBI application form to the Central Forensic Science and Laboratory, Andhra Pradesh for expert opinion and accordingly report was received by the Court that 4 the specimen signature in SBI application forms are tallying with signatures on disputed cheque. The expert observed that, no opinion was found as to Q2 and Q3, which are the signatures on postal acknowledgment and signature on pronote with observation that, extensive and admitted English and Telugu standard signatures are required to offer opinion on them. However, the expert said to have issued his opinion on disputed cheque with reasons. On perusal of the orders of the lower Court, it appears that initially accused has not filed any objections in writing for the said opinion of APFSL nor taken any steps for examining expert in that regard. Thereafter, the accused filed another application in Crl.M.P.No.1126 of 2017 and requested to send the above documents to Central Forensic Laboratory for second opinion and as it was dismissed by the trial Court.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that there are no documents with writing 5 in Telugu for sending the same for comparison and therefore, he could not file the same. Even accepting the same, if the relevant documents are sent to the Forensic Laboratory for second opinion, no useful purpose will be made out as no possibility to compare the disputed documents in the absence of any Telugu admitted signatures. It is essential that admitted signatures of contemporary period so as to enable the expert of common opinion is necessary.
8. Admittedly, accused neither taken any steps for cross examining the expert. In view of the same, both the cases are rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner herein. Complaint has been filed in the year 2012 has been lapsed ten years till today, no finality has been attained for the reasons best known. Time and again, an application have been filed.
6
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner is relied upon the judgment in "M.Ramesh Babu v. M.Sreedhar1" held as follows:
"As far as scientific investigation is concerned, it may be difficult for any Court to substitute its opinion. Whether the expert has followed the correct procedure or not, whether the expert's opinion is based on sound reasoning or not, whether the expert has committed any grave error or not, and whether the expert's opinion is biased in favour of one party or not cannot be judged unless the same is critically examined. Special knowledge and skills are necessary. As far as handwriting and signatures are concerned whether there are any traces of tremor, hesitation, careful retouching, careful pen lifting present or not have to be examined, because such things are usually present when a forger attempts to copy the writing of another person. These circumstances were not taken into consideration in R. Bhaskara Reddy's case referred to above.
Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act (Act 1 of 1872) deals with the opinions of third persons when relevant, which is as follows.
Opinions of experts.- When the Court has to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law, or of science or art, or as to identity of handwriting or finger impressions, the opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art, or in questions as to identity of handwriting or finger impressions are relevant facts.
Such persons are called experts."
10. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the opinion of the experts is essential and that opinion disputed with regard to the substance of the opinion. In the case on hand, since the petitioner 7 has not sent the documents for cross examination by the expert. In view of the same, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the said proceedings.
11. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, this Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in the Criminal Petition, shall stand closed.
_________________________________ JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY Date: 06.09.2022 KLPD 8 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2495 of 2019 Date:06.09.2022 KLPD