Dismissed

Smt.D.Latha v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC10 Aug 2023CRLP/3883/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Supreme Court dismissed the Criminal Petition challenging the Lower Court's refusal to send a cheque for handwriting expert examination under Section 45 of the Evidence Act during arguments, noting the petitioner's failure to seek such evidence earlier or reply to the statutory notice under Section 138 of the NI Act.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition dismissed; pending miscellaneous applications closed.

Smt.D.Latha Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Cheque Dishonour | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION No.3883 of 2023

¶3

ORDER:-

¶4

This Criminal Petition is filed to set aside the order,

¶5

dated 20.4.2023, passed in Crl.M.P.No.575 of 2023 in C.C.No.507 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Puttur.

¶6

Brief facts of the case are as follows;

¶7

A private complaint has been filed against the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in C.C.No.507 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Puttur. Pending the said Calendar Case, the petitioner filed petition in Crl.M.P.No.575 of 2023 to send his admitted signatures contained in certified copy of Registered Sale Deed dated 01.11.2018 and vakalat of accused and the cheque bearing No.765219 now in question to the Finger Print Expert for comparison and for opinion. Learned Magistrate dismissed the said petition on the ground that expert evidence as to hand writing is only opinion evidence, which needs to be corroborated either by clear, direct or circumstantial evidence and having regard to the

¶8

¶9

circumstances, the opinion of the Hand Writing expert cannot be taken on its face value. The learned Magistrate further held that as the case is coming up for arguments and the petitioner/accused has not produced any defence witness or documentary proof or admitted signatures etc., the same cannot be allowed. Against the said order of the learned Magistrate, the present Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/accused.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant is relative of the petitioner and he used to visit petitioner’s house and during her absence in the house, the complainant took away three blank unsigned cheques from her house in the year 2017 and he filed two false cases against the petitioner and another cheque was handed over to one Deepa who also filed another case in C.C.No.103 of 2019.

¶11

It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused that the complainant has no paying capacity and as such, he lending money and obtaining cheque from the petitioner is false and to harass the petitioner and to get wrongful gain by forging the signature of the petitioner, false case is filed against the petitioner.

¶12

¶13

5. Learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor

¶14

opposed the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that the petitioner has come up with said version at a belated stage and in fact no reply notice was given to the legal notice issued by the complainant denying the liability and stealing blank cheques and during the course of trial the petitioner did not make any efforts in filing the petition to send admitted signatures to handwriting expert, but came up with this petition at the time of arguments. Hence, it may be dismissed.

¶15

Heard and perused the record.

¶16

Pending C.C.No.507 2018, the Crl.M.P.No.575 of 2023 is filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to send the cheque bearing No.765219 to Fingerprint Expert for examination of signatures of the petitioner/accused by comparing with signatures in Certified copy of Registered Sale deed dated 01.11.2018 and vakalat of accused and to furnish opinion. The contention of the petitioner is that the complainant is relative of the petitioner and he used to visit petitioner’s house and in her absence the complainant stealthily brought blank unsigned cheques in the year 2017 and filed two false cases by using two cheques

¶17

¶18

against petitioner and gave another cheque to one Deepa and got filed another case in C.C.No.103 of 2019. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is also that the complainant has no financial capacity to lend huge amount to the petitioner and the petitioner never received the said amount and in those circumstances, the present case is filed against the petitioner with a view to harass her and to gain himself wrongfully.

¶19

The complainant/2^nd respondent filed his counter in the trial Court stating that he issued legal notice dated 1.12.2018 to the petitioner/accused under Section 138 of the N.I. Act by registered post with acknowledgment due to her residential address. Though the petitioner received the said notice, she neither paid cheque amount nor issued any reply to the aforesaid notice.

¶20

According to the complainant, if really the version of the petitioner/accused is true that the cheque was stolen by the complainant, the petitioner could have given reply to the said notice or could have resorted to give report to police. But the accused/petitioner did not take such step. It is stated as per Section 73 of the Evidence Act the Court is competent to compare signatures of the

¶21

¶22

petitioner/accused with available signatures in the Court records i.e., Vakalath, petitions, Court notice etc.,

¶23

Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act reads as

¶24

follows;

¶25

“45. Opinions of experts: When the Court has to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law or of science, or art, or as to identity of handwriting,¹ [or finger impressions], the opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art,² [or in questions as to identity of handwriting]¹ [or finger impressions ]are relevant facts. Such persons are called experts.”

¶26

In S.P.S.Rathore Vs CBI and another 1 the

¶27

Hon’ble Supreme Court categorically held,

¶28

“30) It is thus clear that uncorroborated evidence of a hand writing expert is an extremely weak type of evidence and the same should not be relied upon either for the conviction or for acquittal. The courts, should, therefore, be wary to give too much weight to the evidence of handwriting expert. It can rarely, if ever, take the place of substantive evidence. Before acting on such evidence, it is usual to see if it is corroborated either by clear, direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence.”

¶29

1 2017 (6) SCC 817

¶30

¶31

12. Admittedly, the petitioner herein did not give reply

¶32

to the Statutory legal notice issued by the complainant stating that the cheque basing on which the complaint was made, was stolen. Further, she did not move the Court at the earliest time but waited till the case is posted for arguments, to send the cheque for the opinion of the handwriting expert under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act. The petitioner has not shown any bonafides in making a request under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act at the fag-end of the case.

¶33

In view of the aforesaid discussion and reasons, this Court is the clear view that the impugned order passed by the Court below is on correct lines and hence the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

¶34

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

¶35

___________________________________ JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY

¶36

Date:10-08-2023 GR

¶37

¶38

Smt.D.Latha v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.D.Latha v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

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

Narra Peda Kotaiah, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Shaik Vali Pasha Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Koppolu Kameswari Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Kantimahanti Naresh Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt.D.Latha Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Pulicherla Naga Venkata Satya Krishna Bhaskar Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh