MANDA SYAMSUNDAR Vs. ANJANEYACHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused in C. C. Junior Civil Judge/judicial First Class no. 444 of 2006, preferred the present Magistrate, Macherla in Criminal M. P. revision case challenging the order of the No. 925 of 2008 in C. C. No. 444 of 2006. The Criminal Case was filed against him for the offence under Section 138 of negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the act' ). It is mentioned in the complaint that the accused gave Ex. P. 3 cheque for discharge of legally enforceable debt and when he presented the same before the bank, the bank returned the said cheque with an endorsement 'insufficient funds'. Subsequently, after issuing notice to the accused and after complying the formalities required under the Act, the complainant filed the above complaint. The accused took the defence that Exs. P. l and P. 2 promissory notes and Ex. P. 3 cheque are fabricated on account of vengeance against him. During the pendency of the case, when the case was posted for 313 Cr. P. C. examination, the accused filed Crl. M. P. No. 925 of 2008 under Section 45 of the evidence Act, requesting the Court to send exs. P. l to P. 3 to the handwriting expert for comparison with the admitted signatures with a memo of special vakalat. The lower court dismissed the application by observing that the vakalat and memo of reference came into existence after the institution of the complaint and therefore, there is no necessity to the Court to send the documents to the handwriting expert for comparison if there is any substantial evidence on record.

(2.) BEING aggrieved by the order, the accused preferred the present revision petition by contending that the lower Court ought to have given an opportunity to the accused in sending the documents to the handwriting expert for comparison. The learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the bank manager will have the specimen signatures of the accused, which were taken at the time of opening of the accounts, when the same did not tally on the cheque, he would have returned the cheque with an endorsement 'the signatures did not tally', but the bank manager did not raise such an objection. On the other hand, the cheque was returned with an endorsement 'insufficient funds'. Therefore, there is no necessity for sending the documents to the expert and non-raising of objection about the genuineness of the signature by the bank manager itself is sufficient material to show that the cheque was not fabricated.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the respondents relied on a judgment of karnataka High Court in H. M. Satish v. B. N. Ashok, 2007 (3) Crimes 502, wherein a learned Single judge of the High Court observed as under :