IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1729 OF 2018 Between:
B.Kumaraswamy S/o Basma Aged about 30 years R/at Parappanagrahaara Jail Quarters, Gogulanilaya, 5th Block, Bengaluru-560 100.
…Petitioner (By Sri.Manjunath N.D, Advocate) And:
K.R.Ashoka S/o Rajashekhara, Aged about 37 years, R/a Raghavendra Extension, Sakaleshpura Town, Hassan District-573 134.
… Respondent This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying to quash the order passed by the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hassan in Crl.R.P.No.272/2017 dated 17.11.2017 and order passed by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Sakaleshpur in C.C.NO.212/2016 dated 04.08.2017 passed on application filed under Section 243(2) of CRPC and Section 45 of Evidence Act and allow the same application filed by the petitioner to refer the acknowledgment to hand writing expert and give opinion.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Admission, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER Petitioner-accused in C.C.No.212/2016 has sought for quashing of order dated 04.08.2017 which is confirmed in CRL.R.P.No.272/2017 vide order dated 17.11.2017 whereunder Revision Petition filed by petitioner has been dismissed.
2. Perusal of the case papers would disclose that criminal case registered against petitioner is the off shoot of the complaint filed by the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act 1881. When the matter was set down for recording evidence, at that point of time, the accused filed application under Section 243(2) of Cr.P.C. with a prayer to send the postal acknowledgment to forensic laboratory for expert opinion, contending inter alia signature found in the postal acknowledgment produced by the complainant which had been issued by the postal authorities and claimed by complainant that said postal acknowledgment would disclose the statutory notice was received by accused. It was contended by accused that signature found in said postal acknowledgment is not affixed by him. However, learned trial Judge having noticed the evidence available on record has recorded following finding:
“In furtherance of said defence he has come up with this application to refer the postal acknowledgment dated 20.11.2015 to the hand writing expert to compare the same with admitted signature found on vakalath and cheque and to give report. But I gone through the documents placed before the Court and the oral evidence of the parties. From which it appears it is not the case of accused that he is not residing in the address stated in notice. And he himself admitted in his cross- examination that he is residing in the said address and that he received summons sent to the said address by register post. When that is the case it is to be presumed that notice is deemed to be served on accused. Therefore question of sending postal acknowledgment to the hand writing expert does not warrants.”
3. From the reading of above order, it would disclose that accused himself has admitted the address found in postal acknowledgment is his residence where he is residing. Hence, trial Court has rightly rejected the said application and it is confirmed by the trial Court.
No grounds, petition is rejected.
In view of dismissal of the main petition, IA.No.1/2018 for stay does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, IA.No.1 /2018 is rejected.
Sd/- JUDGE ag