Karnataka High Court
Sri Rajesh Sanu vs Sri B Mallikarjuna Swamy on 10 November, 2010
Author: C.R.Kumaraswamy
Bench: C.R.Kumaraswamy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 10?" DAY OF NOVEMBER 2010 BEFORE T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.R. KUMARASWAMYI'.Q;.'.,'.,:T jv" CRIMINAL PETITION NO.-4566/2010....,',_u_:"V~.x I O. BETWEEN: O SRI. RAJESH SANU S/O CHANDRAKANTH SANU AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS "SANU PROPERTIES" NO.EO, KRISHNA GLADE, GUTTALLI CIRCLE, PALACE ROAD, _A - _ BANGALORE 560 920. ' , * "~;..,:,v--P'ETITIONER (BY SR1 S. v1S::HwAji':*:Qy 'S_R:._ N_'.K. SHETW, ADVOCATES) AND: T O 1 SRI. B. MALI,u<,ARJuIxiA,_Sw,AMY,'. ' S/O D. BAsA_;.vANTHAPPAA,P._,, , Ac3'EI>«..ASOm*~ 43., _YEARS, """ " PROPRIETOR, M.M.'«AuTO'L;IPIsII<AS,'A _ ., ' AMAR EuII;OI,NG,,"'~«., ._CHETANA.H'OTEL ROAO1; V *.__P'.3". EXTENISION,' ~ _ 'O_AvANAGERE,, RESPONDENT
_V .O_jj_.T3iI§OS"CI'iminai Petition is filed under Section--482 of Code of C:"ifnina.ECVProcedure praying to Set aside the order dated 7.5.2009 'CIPV.:_:pa.s_Sed in CC. N0.1085/2009 on the file of the 3MFC-II, 6/ Davanagere and to refer the cheque in question to Hand Expert for report.
This Criminal Petition is coming onJfor__adrhis'sion_~vthis 'days "= if the Court made the following:
This Criminal Petition is filed of}Code of Criminal Procedure Drawing datedHV7.S.2O09 passed in c.c. No.t.'J8S/2QAG9:.. :on."V---t_h_e the mrc-11, Davanagere and to Hand Writing Expert for report. ii"
2. I have' heard':t'i1e'.l.e'a--r:n'e.dhcounsel for the petitioner. Though notice was"serve't1_u respondent, but he remained ujnre.prese_.nte_d.A. ----------
the Court below has filed an application under Sé'ctiov--n:s & 73 of the Indian Evidence Act requesting to refer the cheque - Ex.P1 to the handwriting e§t«;2_ertVVfos*"scientific investigation and call for the report from the C ecxj3er'tlVwith regard to tampering of the document. in support 15/ That the application filed by the accused visfnot maintainable. The accused has not made out any application to appoint the handwriting expert. has filed the present application to pl:otractAjj.the since the matter is being posted .for___ cros's_jexaminatibvn_zoflfthe complainant from 23.3.2007. The has above application with a malafide complainant.
The trial Court has got._ample,po'w--er."to writings on Ex.P1 under Act. Therefore the application filed '.i'ias'§nVol merits and prays to dismiss the a1pplic_atiic.n._yVV_ S. Tlje*sum and substance of the finding of the trial Court i*:S?.E?$u{3dE'i':
I plriviaiate complaint was filed by the complainant under V*{"§e:jtion--fi"§-38 v__fof.,l'.3the Negotiable Instruments Act. The l examined as PW--:i. Thereafter at the request "fof"t.heacc.used, case was adjourned from time to time for cross- Vie§<aminVation of PW--1. Even the case was adjourned for cross-- llkleitalmination by imposing cost. When the matter was posted for 3/.
time of evidence of PW~1 and that too when the case wasxp-o_sited for cross-examination. The material alteration in thé"ci1e'q~i.ie . visible to the naked eyes. Therefore the learned;'codifise'l*for_tlieu '* petitioner prays to refer the cheque - Ex.P1._-iitof?.'ha'nd"viriting_r' expert. It is contended that in?ca__se ifanl"opportiJ.inityHis.:'lnot provided to the accused to examinveWtlle.VVhand' expert, there will be denial of fair ' Itisal's'e__'c.oA:i'i~tended that if the cheque is referred to the scAiyen,tifi.c it will reveal whether it is or"notj_"a:nvdx'th*e':tZourt wili be in a position to come to_a~:fico'rrect'c.on~c_iu_s'io'n. A
8. A mate_ri'al_ a'it.eiraiitioh..,_,iys"'one which varies the rights, liabilities, or legalupo.s'itio.n of the parties as ascertained by the de'evd"in yits».Ejriigiinai..statei"oréotherwise varies the legai effect of the :nstrumie.:la.ts 'crigi:n~ally expressed. At th'isi__stage, it is useful to refer some of the sections of 44:t--he'--Nyet3Aoti,alj.§e Instruments Act: £/// 9.1 Section--18 of the Negotiabie Instruments Act, *1_s9i1 reads as under:
"Where amount is stated differenitiy' in«fig_4iireV'sfan_dVV' words:~ If the amount trndertakene.orfordyered paid is stated differentiy in firm-res an'd_in wordsrrtihe amount stated in words be ti1.e"-arnoL_ntVV undertaken or ordered to_be pa'id.--i'Vo_:'~ 9.2 Section-87 of the AN.eg"otiato_wief._Ii"i'svtr1i~i5t1e*nts Act deais with effect of materiai a}Zte'_rati:oAn under: "Effect of: ..V.rr::.at;eriai ' ..a'i'teraVtion:V'f Any materiai aiteratioVnA'§'io'fir _Vne%jotia'bi.é instvrtirnent renders the same void "as who is a party thereto at the tim'e__otf miamg alteration and does not consent thereto, unless itiwas made in order to carry "vout'-the sgomnjon iintentivon of the originai parties; 'A.ite-ratiorn'«v...i:jyxfinsdorseez And any such alteration, if made by. .an}.i*ndorsee, discharges his indorser from 'sail iiabiiiity to him in respect of the consideration K V' '- Vthereofr"
.' The provisions of this section are subject to those of VA ...sections 20, 49, as and 125."
M wihe-thegr__it is overwritten or not.
"The holder of a negotiable instrument indorsed,in"-.0-.. blanks may, without signing his own name';"'-4by..'__j:
writing above the indorser's signature a directionvjto it pay to any other person as lndoirseel ccinvert./I,t'he' indorsement in blank into an indors,:ement3in'=fulil.§"and 'A the holder does not thereby incur t'hge"'responsibi'lity of an lndorser." '
10. In the instant case,;:4_.i't«.is ofwthwe learned counsel for the petitioner ig..,Vvfi§'a'tge'iV'iai alteration.
Attention of this Court drawn" t.he::i'i:guire::'A'7" in the cheque
-- Ex.P1 and iivguire "7" is iight when compared _c_hegVue. Therefore it is his contention tha't_there alteration. According to Section-18 of..tl7b l\ieg:otia.blellinsitruments Act, the words written ha-std' be Vtiaiiliienitintedflconsideration instead of figures. However it is the 'co.nten:ti--o%.n' learned counsei for the petitioner that figure added before "3" in the cheque --- Ex.P1. iiifntier'-»iSection¢_7A'3 of the Indian Evidence Act, the Court can com-pai'e'Vthe".--'words and figures so written and form an opinion Learned counsel for the has relied on the decision of the i-ion'ble Supreme Court in the case of G. SOMESHWAR RAO .VS. SAMINENI NAGESHWAR RAO reported in 2009(2) DCR 33? wherein at paragraph-14 it is heid as under:
"Keeping in view the pecuiiar facts;:.MandV--',f~--f*' circumstances of this case, we are of the opEn.io'n'f~tvhat:: ._ the interest of justice would be';'sVu"bse_r\i.ed-;'i.t,:"'aii,'7 opportunity is granted to the appe.iEa:n't"to ie'.xa'm.iVne "
an expert at his own costs.*V_ I-f__he iieqxuisitio,:ns~{.t~hem services of an expert, the iearn"ed_V'i]:idge 'wotjid':gra,nt him an opportunity, '"t.c_> e.xam:.ne j"thAe d'is'pu"t'ed documents, submit a reipoit a'n_di';~.¢xaVmVi_i1ei himself as a witness"'iin..xt'iL;i'e 'pref-erab"iy"'*o"n the same date. Such step, "tho-w,euet,.__."must be taken by the appeE|ant'with.in six iiieeksfrom date." the case o'ii~h.and if the petitioner wants to examine the"--..',ianol" writingiiexpert at his own cost, he can examine the :1,':".e§xpert 'anti the Court shall permit him to examine the 'expert. With viithis observation, this Criminal Petition is disposed 34/.-3 Wm Tiff se