CHANDRAKALA Vs. G SANDHYA RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to set aside the order dated 20th April 2006 made by the III Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, in Criminal Revision Petition No.27 of 2006, confirming the order dated 14th February 2006 made in Criminal M.P.No.5673 of 2005 in C.C.No.430 of 2002 on the file of the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

(2.) Petitioner is the accused in the above case for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the Act'). The cheque issued by the petitioner was presented to the bank and it was returned with an endorsement "Account is not with us, no record". Subsequently, a legal notice was issued for which the petitioner did not give any reply and later a complaint has been filed to prosecute him for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act. During pendency of the case, the petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.5673 of 2005 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, praying the Court to send Exs.P-1 to P-3 to a handwriting expert for comparison with Exs.D-1 to D-6 and to ascertain age of the ink on Exs.P-1 to P-3. The trial court dismissed the said application by holding that though the accused was served with Ex.P-5 legal notice under Ex.P-6, but she did not issue any reply notice questioning execution of Exs.P-1 to P-3. Even after receiving copies of documents by her under Section 207 Cr.P.C. on 21.11.2002 also she did not question the execution and date of Exs.P-1 to P-3. After lapse of more than 3 years, surprisingly, the present petition has been filed seeking handwriting expert opinion and age of the ink on Exs.P-1 to P-3, which shows the present petition is filed only with an intention to protract the litigation. The criminal revision petition No.27 of 2006 preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed by the III Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, dated 20th April 2006 by confirming the order of the trial court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is contending that he discharged the amount due to the complainant by way of a demand draft and the complainant also obtained his signatures on blank papers including blank cheque, and subsequently, the complainant filled up the cheque and presented it to the bank, therefore, the prosecution cannot be maintained. He further pleaded that the debt relates to the year 1994 and the blank cheque was issued duly signed by him in 1994 and the complainant presented the cheque in 2001 and it was returned with an endorsement "Account is not with us, no record". The prayer of the application discloses that the petitioner prayed for sending the documents to the expert for comparison of handwriting and for comparison of the ink. So far as comparison of the ink, learned counsel for the petitioner concedes that it is very difficult to find the age of the ink unless there is a long gap during which some chemical changes are likely to occur. So far as the comparison of handwriting is concerned it is the specific contention of the petitioner that he gave blank cheque in 1994 and the complainant filled up the body of the cheque and presented to the bank for encashment. Immediately, after dishonour of the cheque the complainant issued a legal notice, but the petitioner did not choose to give any reply having received the same. Subsequently, the complaint was filed in 2002 and he did not raise any objection for a period of 3 years as rightly pointed out by the lower court.