Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Sri.Kosaraju Annapurna vs Sri.Kosaraju Veera Venkata Vara Prasad on 16 July, 2024
APHC010593112023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
PRADESH
[3365]
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY ,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE DR V R K KRUPA SAGAR
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1088/2023
Between:
Sri.kosaraju Annapurna ...PETITIONER
AND
Sri Kosaraju Veera Venkata Vara Prasad ...RESPONDENT(S)
and Others
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. P B NARASIMHA MURTY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
2. KALLA TULASI DURGAMBA
The Court made the following:
2
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1088 of 2023
ORDER:
1. Accused before the trial court filed this revision under Sections 397 and 401 of the CrPC questioning the correctness of the order dated 31.10.2023 of learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge- cum - II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Eluru, West Godavari District in Crl.M.P.No.5355 of 2023 in C.C.No.812 of 2017.
2. Sri P.Siva Prasad, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri B.Narasimha Murty, learned counsel for revision petitioner submitted arguments. Respondent No.1 herein is the complainant before the trial court. Though notices were served on R1, none entered appearance. For respondent No.2/State, appearance was made by learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.
3. Learned counsel for revision petitioner questions the reasoning adopted by the learned trial court and states that the impugned order is perverse requiring interference. 3
4. Respondent No.1 filed a complaint under section 200 CrPC as against the revision petitioner alleging that the revision petitioner borrowed Rs.10 lakhs and executed a promissory note on 27.02.2014 agreeing to repay the debt with 24% interest per annum. Thereafter, towards discharge of a part of the debt, she had given a cheque bearing No.052643 dated 18.11.2016 drawn on ICICI Bank, Visakhapatnam. As the cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds, after issuing statutory notice, the complaint was filed seeking prosecution and punishment of the accused for the offences under section 138 NI Act, 1881. That became C.C.No.812 of 2017 before learned II Additional Judicial I Class Magistrate, Eluru. In accordance with the procedure, the proceedings in the case took place. The defence of the accused was that the cheque and the pro-note were forged and they did not bear her signatures. It was in such circumstances, the accused moved various applications before the learned Magistrate to secure documents from the bank and income tax department. All of them were allowed and various documents were secured. The purpose of those documents was to see the standard signatures of the accused. Then the accused also filed Crl.M.P.No.1434 and 1435 of 2020 whereunder she requested 4 the learned Magistrate to forward the standard signatures and the disputed signatures for opinion of the hand writing expert. By an order dated 15.11.2021, the learned Magistrate allowed those petitions. Thereafter, the documents were forwarded to Andhra Pradesh Forensic Science Laboratory, Mangalagiri (APFSL). On 01.09.2023, the laboratory sent the following report: -
" Kindly refer to the letter cited, it is to submit that, the documents have been examined and any conclusive opinion could not be drawn on the available standards. Hence, the documents received are herewith returned.
Inconvenience caused in this regard is very much regretted."
5. Thereafter, the accused filed Crl.M.P.No.5355 of 2023 requesting the trial court to forward the documents for experts' opinion to Truth Labs, Hyderabad. After due hearing and enquiry, the learned Magistrate dismissed the petition by an order dated 31.10.2023. It is that order which is challenged in this revision. 5
6. Having considered the material on record, this court finds that the order impugned cannot be sustained for the following reasons: -
The disputed cheque is Ex.P1. The disputed pro-note is Ex.P5. The version of the accused is that they are forged and therefore they required examination by a hand writing expert. That prayer was considered and allowed by the trial court on the earlier occasion. Therefore, the learned trial court had already taken a decision that while appreciating the evidence and deciding the dispute, the opinion of hand writing expert would serve Justice well. Then what happened at the laboratory is not within the competence of either of the parties to the case. APFSL in its report stated that the expert had examined the documents but he was unable to reach to a concluded opinion and therefore the laboratory returned the documents. When that happens with one expert, it is quite natural for an accused to see that another laboratory and the experts therein may have the ability to do the scientific work. Therefore, the accused moved another application before the trial court. It dismissed it stating that if one laboratory could not do it, it is not possible to think that another laboratory 6 could do it. It felt that it is an old case of the year 2017 and asking another expert's opinion would unnecessarily consume the time. Both the reasons are invalid. At the trial in a criminal case, all the legal support that is required for the citizens shall be granted by the courts. The failure of one expert cannot be considered as a rule of thumb to deny forwarding of documents to another expert. That is more clear when we look at the report issued by the APFSL. The said report itself is not very clear as to what prompted the expert to reach to such conclusion. It does not show what test it had conducted to arrive at such a conclusion. Though it is a case of the year 2017, the court trying the case, earlier felt it was a just prayer by the accused and it was necessary for it to have the expert's opinion and allowed the earlier application. Therefore, that need for the accused to consolidate his defence and the desire of the trial court to have the opinion of the hand writing expert for its appreciation cannot be subjected to any further review. Once such decision was taken the necessary endeavor shall be there to see that the required task is completed. Therefore, the order passed is perverse and must be set aside.7
7. In the result, this criminal revision case is allowed. Consequently, order dated 31.10.2023 of learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge - cum - II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Eluru in Crl.M.P.No.5355 of 2023 in C.C.No.812 of 2017 is set aside and accordingly Crl.M.P.No.5355 of 2023 in C.C.No.812 of 2017 stands allowed. It is made clear that the learned trial court can obtain some more standard writings and signatures of the accused if so required.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________________ Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR, J Date: 16.07.2024 Dvs 8 THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1088 of 2023 Date: 16.07.2024 Dvs