Allowed

Goluguri Venkata Satyanarayana Reddy v. State of a.P., and Another

Andhra Pradesh HC7 Dec 2021CRLRC/1455/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision, the High Court set aside the Special Judicial Magistrate's dismissal of an application to refer a cheque to a handwriting expert. The Court held that the lower court failed to consider material averments regarding signature mismatch and alleged date alteration, violating Supreme Court principles that guarantee an accused the right to rebut presumptions by adducing relevant

What did the court decide?

Set aside the impugned order; Directed the lower court to refer the cheque to a handwriting expert for comparison and expert opinion; Directed parties to conclude proceedings expeditiously.

Goluguri Venkata Satyanarayana Reddy Vs State of… — Cheque Dishonour | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1455 of 2014

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This Revision Case is filed aggrieved by the orders dated 20.6.2014 on the file of Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (for Proh. & Excise) in Crl.M.P.No.284/2014 in C.C.No.445/2013. 2. The petitioner has filed an application under section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act for the following prayer:

¶4

“…for sending the cheque dated 05.02.2011 filed along with a complaint to compare the admitted signature of the petitioner/accused in the contemporaneous documents filed, that the disputed signature/writing by taking the signatures/writings of the petitioner/accused in the open court and also to give expert opinion on the material alteration of dated 05.02.2011, at the column of month “12”, to the Government hand writing expert for opinion.”

¶5

The said application was dismissed by the Court below on the ground that prima-facie on perusal of Ex.P1 cheque in question did not reveal any material alteration on the date and the date under Ex.P1 as 05.12.2011 is clear with naked eye. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petition is filed under section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act with a contention that the writings & signatures and the contemporaneous writings in the said cheque is also not with of the petitioner/accused as G.V.S.Reddy is not of this petitioner/accused. 3. Further it is averred in the petition that on verifying the cheque it revealed that the date is materially altered. To support the said petition, the petitioner has also relied on the evidence of PW1 wherein he deposed that on enquiry, it is revealed that the accused filled up the contents of the cheque and he denied a suggestion that the month in the date of Ex.P1 has been altered from “7” to “12” by converting “2” into “7” and putting numeral „1‟ before the said altered numeral „7‟. In view of the said deposition and the contentions raised by the petitioner and also the complainant has stated that no objection for getting the cheque examined by a hand writing expert. But without considering

¶6

¶7

the material averments made in the petition as well as the deposition, the Court below has rejected the application. In the identical matter the

¶8

Hon‟ble Apex Court in T.Nagappa vs. Y.R.Muralidhar¹ wherein the Court has observed that:

¶9

“When a contention has been raised that the complainant has misused the cheque, even in a case where a presumption can be raised under Section 138(a) or 139 of the said Act, an opportunity must be granted to the accused for adducing evidence in rebuttal thereof.

¶10

Further it is also observed that:

¶11

The nature of the evidence is not a matter which should be left only to the discretion of the Court. It is the accused who knows how to prove his defence. It is true that the Court being the mater of the proceedings must determine as to whether the application filed by the accused in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 243 of the Code is bonafides or not or whether thereby he intends to bring on record a relevant material.

¶12

When there is a specific averment made by the petitioner in the evidence, the Court below has to consider the application made by the petitioner instead of rejecting the same.

¶13

In view of the above observations, the order dated 20.6.2014 on the file of Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (for Proh. & Excise) in Crl.M.P.No.284/2014 in C.C.No.445/2013 is set aside and the Court below is directed to send the cheque dated 05.12.2011 filed along with the complaint to compare the admitted signatures of the petitioner/accused with the documents filed along with the petition. Both the parties are directed to conclude the proceedings as expeditiously as possible.

¶14

Accordingly, the criminal revision case is allowed.

¶15

As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶16

_____________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH Date: 07.12.2021 RD

¶17

1 (2008) 5 Supreme Court Cases 633

¶18

¶19

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH

¶20

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1455 of 2014

¶21

Date: 07.12.2021

¶22

Goluguri Venkata Satyanarayana Reddy v. State of a.P., and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Goluguri Venkata Satyanarayana Reddy v. State of a.P., and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhupathiraju Satyanarayana Raju Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Ghantasala Rambabu, Vs State of Ap

B.Venkata Raji Vs State of Ap

P Veera Brahmam Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Mangala Jalipalli Ramanamma Vs C Karunakar

C.Luka Kumar Vs State of Ap