R RAMANJANYULU Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order of the learned III Special Magistrate, Hyderabad, dated 03.02.2014 in Crl.M.P.No.35 of 2014 in C.C.No.42 of 2013 (old C.C.No.227 of 2012) rejecting the request of the accused to send Ex.P.1 -cheque to handwriting expert is assailed through the present revision.

(2.) THE second respondent/de facto complainant laid C.C.No.42 of 2013 against the petitioner/accused on the basis of Ex.P.1 -cheque for Rs.10,00,000/ -. The petitioner took the stand that he initially issued a cheque for Rs.1 lakh in favour of the second respondent and where it was represented by the petitioner that the cheque was misplaced, Ex.P.1 -cheque was issued. The petitioner further contended that in Ex.P.1 -cheque, he merely scribed the figures Rs.1,00,000/ - in the column meant for figures and signed the cheque leaving blank the date column and the amount in words line. It is contended by the petitioner that the second respondent materially altered the cheque showing as if the petitioner issued a cheque for Rs.10 lakhs.

(3.) SRI A. Sudhakar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused contended that where the petitioner is denying the contents of Ex.P.1 -cheque and where the second respondent is asserting that the contents of Ex.P.1 -cheque are true, it would be just and reasonable to allow the petitioner to send the document to handwriting expert to determine whether '0 ', as disputed by the petitioner, was in his handwriting or otherwise. On the other hand, Sri K. Saibabu, learned counsel for the second respondent/de facto complaint contended that the petition is highly belated and it cannot be entertained.