V.VENKATA RAO Vs. V. MANNAVA SRINIVASARAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful petitioner-Accused before the Court below, vide order dtd. 16/9/2016 in Crl.M.P.No.2161 of 2016 in C.C.No.38 of 2016 passed by the V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, filed under Sec. 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for brevity "the Evidence Act") to send Ex.P.1 - Promissory Note (pronote) dtd. 12/5/13 to the Handwriting Expert, contending that he did not execute the said pronote and it is a rank forgery, for the 1strespondent-complainant of C.C.No.38 of 2016 filed under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for brevity "the N.I. Act") to maintain cheque dishonour case for dishonour of Ex.P.2 - cheque, from his contest that the said cheque was obtained as a security in some other transaction to one Dasari Srinivasa Rao and there is a misuse of the same by the said Dasari Srinivasa Rao in collusion with the 1strespondent-complainant - Mannava Srinivasa Rao, to say the petitioner-Accused issued the cheque as if it is supported by the so-called pronote consideration and it is his contest thereby and to support the contest, the said document is required to be sent to an Expert for his opinion to establish the factum of the pronote is a forged one and the cheque is not supported by any consideration and it was not issued for any legally enforceable debt or other liability.

(2.) On contest by the respondent-complainant, the Court below, by the impugned order dtd. 16/9/2016, dismissed the said application with an observation that even the petitioner-Accused did not issue a reply notice to the Statutory notice sent by the 1st respondent-complainant, had there been any truth in the version of the alleged pronote not executed by him, despite Statutory notice mentions that the said cheque supported by the pronote consideration and that too, in one of the expressions of the High Court in C. MURUGAN v. M. SYED SULTHAN, vide order dtd. 14/12/2011 in Crl.R.C.(MD).No.925 of 2011, with an observation that when the cheque issued is not in dispute and the dispute is as to the pronote, which is only a supporting document, in seeking to send the same to an Expert opinion serves no purpose and cannot be sent, lends support and also for the reason that the petition is filed belatedly and hence no grounds to allow the petition.

(3.) In the present revision, even notice ordered to the defacto- complainant, including his Advocate on record before the Court below, there was an acknowledgement and there is a failure to attend with no even representation, hence taken as heard.