IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1242 OF 2016 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1243 OF 2016 IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1242 OF 2016 BETWEEN:
SRI R AKSHIT S/O RAVI AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/A NO.13/A, 1ST FLOOR 12TH MAIN ROAD BTM 1ST STAGE BANGALORE-560029 (BY SRI: K K VASANTH, ADVOCATE) AND:
SRI SUNIL R S/O RAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/A NO.100/101 16TH MAIN, 12TH CROSS BTM 1ST STAGE BANGALORE-560029 ... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI: K P CHANDRASHEKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE-ABSENT) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 10.02.2016 PASSED ON THE APPLICATION FILED U/S 311 OF CR.P.C. BY XIX A.C.M.M., BANGALORE IN C.C.NO.9897/2009 VIDE ANNEXURE-G AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETR. DATED 03.10.2015 U/S 311 OF CR.P.C. IN C.C.NO.9897/2009 VIDE ANNEXURE-F.
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1243 OF 2016 BETWEEN:
SRI R AKSHIT S/O RAVI AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/A NO.13/A, 1ST FLOOR 12TH MAIN ROAD BTM 1ST STAGE BENGALURU -560029 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI: K K VASANTH, ADVOCATE) AND:
SRI SUNIL R S/O RAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/A NO.100/101 16TH MAIN, 12TH CROSS BTM 1ST STAGE BENGALURU -560029 ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI: K P CHANDRASHEKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE-ABSENT) ---
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 10.02.2016 PASSED ON THE APPLICATION FILED U/S 311 OF CR.P.C. BY THE XIX A.C.M.M., BANGALORE IN C.C.NO.9909/2009 VIDE ANNEXURE-G AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 03.10.2015 U/S 311 OF CR.P.C. IN C.C.NO.9909/2009 VIDE ANNEXURE-E.
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Petitioner is aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned XIX ACMM, Bengaluru, in C.C.No.9897/2009 and C.C.No.9909/2009 on the applications filed by the petitioner under section 311 of Cr.P.C. Petitioner and respondent are common in both the petitions.
2. The respondent in these cases initiated action against the petitioner/accused for dishonour of two cheques issued by the petitioner. On entering appearance, the petitioner moved applications under section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act seeking to refer the said cheques for examination by the expert. The said applications were allowed by order dated 18.04.2012. Accordingly, the cheques were forwarded to Central Forensic Laboratory, Hyderabad for scientific investigation, but the same were returned on 27.01.2015 as technical facilities were not available in the Laboratory to detect the alteration/addition in the documents. The applications filed by the petitioner under section 311 of Cr.P.C., seeking to resend the said documents to any other recognized laboratory for opinion of the handwriting expert has been rejected by the learned Magistrate mainly on the ground that the application is moved after inordinate delay and is intended to protract the proceedings.
3. The trial court having permitted the petitioner to get the disputed documents examined by the handwriting expert without securing the report thereon, could not have rejected the applications solely on the ground of delay. More over, the disputed documents having been returned by the FSL authorities at Hyderabad without examining them, the evidence has remained inconclusive and incomplete. Therefore, the applications were required to be allowed. The trial court having erroneously rejected the said applications, the impugned orders are liable to be set-aside.
Accordingly, the petitions are allowed. The impugned orders dated 10.02.2016 passed by the XIX ACMM, Bengaluru in C.C.No.9897/2009 and C.C.No.9909/2009 are set-aside. The applications filed under section 311 of Cr.P.C. in C.C.No.9897/2009 and C.C.No.9909/2009 are allowed. The trial court shall take steps to send the disputed documents for opinion of the handwriting expert as sought for in the memos filed along with the applications.
Sd/- JUDGE Bss