Dismissed

Vadavalli Anand Kumar v. the State of a.P.,Rep.,Pp and Another

Andhra Pradesh HC1 Dec 2021CRLRC/2672/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of two criminal revision cases challenging orders dismissing Section 45 applications for sending cheques for expert comparison. Relying on prior decisions, the court held that such orders are interlocutory and not maintainable in revision.

What did the court decide?

Both revision cases dismissed; incidental miscellaneous applications stood closed.

Vadavalli Anand Kumar Vs the State of a.P.,Rep.,Pp… — Cheque Dishonour | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.2672 & 2679 of 2016

¶3

COMMON ORDER:

¶4

Crl.R.C.No.2672 of 2016:

¶5

This revision is filed by the petitioner/accused aggrieved by the docket order dated 24.9.2016 passed in Crl.M.P.No.7765/2016 in C.C.No.33/2016 filed by the petitioner under section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Eluru.

¶6

Crl.R.C.No.2679 of 2016:

¶7

This revision is filed by the petitioner/accused aggrieved by the docket order dated 24.9.2016 passed in Crl.M.P.No.7764/2016 in C.C.No.32/2016 filed by the petitioner under section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Eluru.

¶8

Both revision cases are filed by one petitioner and the subject involved in both the revision cases is one and the same and hence both the revision cases are being disposed of with a common order.

¶9

The petitioner/accused filed applications under section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 requesting the Court to send the original cheques dated 25.01.2021 and 21.11.2012 to the forensic expert along with the admitted signatures of the accused for the purpose of comparison.

¶10

Both the applications are dismissed by the Court below on 24.9.2016 with the following observations:

¶11

…”A person who by manipulation of process frustrates the legal rights of other should not be permitted to take advantage of his wrong or manipulations. In this context, it is not out of place for me to recapitulate the judicial

¶12

¶13

pronouncement of Hon’ble High Court reported in 2014(1) LS (Crl.) 978. This decision elucidates the principle that when the application for seeking opinion the expert is filed at a belated stage without availing earliest opportunity, the application is not maintainable under section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, thus this decision squarely applies to the present factual matrix within all four corners.”

¶14

At the stage of admission in both the matters, this Court has stayed the proceedings and subsequently after notice, the respondent has filed counter and vacate stay petition. Despite his efforts, the same could not be taken up.

¶15

At the time of hearing, learned Counsel for the respondent has relied on the judgment of this Court reported in between Goli

¶16

Satyanarayana Reddy vs G.Mahesh & Anr¹ and it is an order of batch of criminal revision cases wherein this Court gave finding

¶17

that:

¶18

“… To sum-up, after considering the law enunciated by the Apex Court in Amar Nath Madhu LImaye, and Girish Kumar Suneja, as discussed supra, it is held that since the order passed under Section 45 of the Evidence Act do not decide anything finally and results into culminating the main proceeding of the case, in any way, it cannot be construed as an order which is of matter of moment or as an intermediate or quasi final order so as to maintain revision against the said order. It is held that on par with the law laid down in Sethuraman, that an order summoning a witness or calling for a document is an interlocutory order against which revision is barred, the order passed under Section 45 of the Evidence Act is also a pure and simple interlocutory order against which revision is barred under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C.

¶19

In view of the ratio decided in the above judgment, the two revision cases are squarely covered with the above said judgment and hence both the revision cases are dismissed.

¶20

As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications pending, if any,

¶21

shall stand closed.

¶22

_____________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH Date: 01.12.2021 RD

¶23

1 2019 LawSuit(AP) 466

¶24

¶25

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH

¶26

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.2672 & 2679 of 2016

¶27

Date: 01.12.2021

¶28

Vadavalli Anand Kumar v. the State of a.P.,Rep.,Pp and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vadavalli Anand Kumar v. the State of a.P.,Rep.,Pp 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saji Ahmad Vs the State of Ap

Mohammad Arif Quresh, Vs The State of andhra Pradesh

Amarjith Singh, Vs State represented by the Public Prosecutor

G.Krishna Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

VaddadiLovarajuAT Raju, Vs The State of A.P

Guduru Venkata Naga Sekhar Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh