HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR Criminal Petition Nos.3995, 3996, 3997, 3998 and 3999 of 2014 Date: 08-7-2014 Between M/s. Venkateshwara Trading Co., Rep. by its Partner Gautam Gupta … Petitioner/Accused and M/s. Binjusari Ispat Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Director Sumeet Kedia … Respondent/
De facto Complainant
The State of A.P., Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad … Respondent HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR Criminal Petition Nos.3995, 3996, 3997, 3998 and 3999 of 2014 Common Order:
These five petitions are disposed of through the present order as the question which arose in all the cases is one and the same and also because the parties are the same persons.
2. The 1st respondent laid five complaints against the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (the N.I.Act, for short). The cases were taken on file. The trial in each of the cases concluded. Ex.P-3 is the cheque, which stood dishonoured. After completion of trial, the accused came forward with a petition under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to send Ex.P-3 cheque to handwriting expert to examine whether Ex.P-3 is in the handwriting of the accused. There is no dispute that the cheques were signed by the accused. While the accused contended that blank cheques were given to the 1st respondent as security, the 1st respondent contended that the duly filled up cheques were delivered to the 1st respondent by the accused.
3. When the accused sought to send Ex.P-3 cheque to handwriting expert, the Trial Court dismissed the petitions. The accused preferred criminal revisions before the learned VII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. The learned Sessions Judge confirmed the orders. Hence, the present petitions.
4. The learned counsel for the accused contended that the handwriting in each of the cheques may be examined by a handwriting expert with the admitted handwriting of the accused to determine whether the cheque was duly filled by the accused or otherwise.
5. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent raised a two-fold contention as his objection. The first of the contentions is that perhaps the columns in the cheque were filled up by a clerk or an officer of the accused, so much so, handwriting may not tally with the handwriting of the accused. His 2nd contention is that even if the cheque was handed over to the 1st respondent in a blank shape, it nevertheless would be an enforceable cheque. In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon Ravi Chopra v.
[1]
State . In that case, a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court held that even if the cheque was signed leaving it blank, failure of honour of such a cheque would attract liability under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. Consequently, it is irrelevant whether the cheque was handed over by the accused to the 1st respondent duly filling up the same or in a blank shape. Such a question would purely be academic.
6. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent contended that the accused has been procrastinating by raising one contention or other or filing one petition or the other. He submitted that long after completion of the evidence of the 1st respondent’s side, the accused filed a petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C to recall P.W.1.
He further pointed out that when he filed the present petitions, the accused was not granted stay of the trial of the cases. He also pointed out other instances to prove that the accused intends to protract the cases which are not germane and do not deserve to be stated in this petition.
7. Be it noted that the petition to send Ex.P-3 to handwriting expert is belated in the sense the accused preferred such a petition after completion of trial and not after the evidence of P.W.1. Even otherwise, it is irrelevant as to whether the accused himself filled up the blanks of the cheques or someone else filled up the blanks. I therefore consider that the dismissal of the petitions seeking to send Ex.P-3 to handwriting expert by the Trial Court as confirmed by the Revisional Court is perfectly justified. I see no reason to interfere with the orders of the Revisional Court.
8. Consequently, these criminal petitions are dismissed. The miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these petitions shall stand closed.
Dr. K.G.SHANKAR, J.
08th July, 2014. Ak HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR Criminal Petition Nos.3995, 3996, 3997, 3998 and 3999 of 2014 (Common Order) 08th July, 2014. (Ak)
[1] 2009 (1) ALD (Crl.) (NOC) 13 (Del.)