The High Court dismissed a criminal petition filing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the lower court's refusal to order forensic analysis of ink age for a cheque dispute. The Court held the petition was devoid of merit due to delay.
The Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Crl.P.No. 340 of 2012
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash order dated 01-06-2011 passed in Crl.M.P.No.562 of 2011 in C.C.No.306 of 2008 (C.C.) on the file of the Court of V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kakinada.
2. The petitioner herein is the accused and the second respondent herein is the complainant in the C.C. For convenience sake, I refer the parties as arrayed in the C.C.
3. It is necessary to note briefly the allegations and pleadings made in the complaint for proper appreciation of the matter, they are as follows:
The complainant is a resident of Kakinada, the accused is a resident of Rajahmundry and they know each other. On 15-09-2006 the accused for the purpose of meeting his family expenses borrowed a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- from the complainant expressing to repay the amount with interest at 24% per annum, and executed a pronote in that context in favour of the complainant. Thereafter, on the repeated demands made by the complainant, the accused issued a cheque bearing No.657917 dated 03-11-2007 for Rs.3,50,000/- drawn on Andhra Bank, Madhav Nagar Branch, Kakinada to the complainant towards the payment of the debt amount whereas when the complainant sent the cheque to the bank of the accused on 30-042008 for collection through his bank i.e., Andhra bank, Srinagar Colony, Kakinada, it was returned with an endorsement “funds insufficient” along with the corresponding memo dated 30-04-2008 following which the complainant got issued a legal notice to the accused on 10-05-2008 calling upon him to pay the cheque amount. The accused received the notice on 21-05-2008 and gave reply on 19-05-2008 following which the complainant got issued rejoinder on 19-06-2008 to the reply issued by the accused, whereas
ultimately the accused had not paid the cheque amount. Thus he committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘the Act’).
4. During the course of trial, the accused filed a petition under Section 91 Cr.P.C. to send the original promissory note dated 09-062006 and the cheque dated 09-12-2007 bearing No.657918 from the file of S.T.C.No.522 of 2008.
5. The plea of the complainant is that the pronote and the cheque were given by the accused in respect of the legally existing debt. On the other hand the claim of the accused is that there was no legally existing debt between him and the complainant and a blank cheque containing his signature was issued to one Sunkara Suresh Babu, partner of M/s. Sindhu Prashant Builders, Kakinada on 09-082007 towards the security of the amount of advance given by the partnership firm in pursuance of development agreement dated 07-082007, whereas subsequently the blanks in the cheque were filled up with due contents showing as if the cheuqe was given by the accused to the complainant in respect of a legally existing debt.
6. The Court below dismissed the petition on the ground that the petition was filed by the accused after the conclusion of the trial of the case and after posting the case for arguments and it was not possible to ascertain the age of the ink used to fill up the document on the basis of the writings made therein and also on the basis of mere opinion of the expert which could be obtained and no useful purpose could be served by allowing the petition, and relied upon the decision [1] reported in YASH PAL v. KARTAR SINGH , wherein it was held as follows:
“In the present case, such investigation is not likely to help to conclusively prove that the writing dated 11-02-1998 was in fact recorded earlier because the age of the ink cannot be determined on the basis of the writing. If the ink is manufactured five years before the date of the execution of the document and used on
11-02-1998 for the first time then instead of resolving any controversy it would create confusion. Therefore, no useful purpose could be served by allowing such an application. It is true that opinion of expert is relevant under Sections 45 and 46 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 but in the present case that has to be read with Order 25, Rule 10A of the Code. The basic rationale is whether such scientific investigation is going to advance the cause of justice and would be necessary for adjudicating upon the rights of the parties. Therefore, I do not find any ground to interfere in the well reasoned order passed by the learned Civil Judge.”
7. Necessary decision can be given just basing upon the material available. Having gone through the findings of the Court below, I find no infirmity therein. It is to be very much reckoned with that after having waited for three years and after conclusion of the trial of the case and after posting the matter for arguments, the present petition was filed under Section 91 Cr.P.C. Further no authority has been placed by the accused before the Court to overcome the decision referred above. The matter can be disposed of on the basis of the evidence available. The accused is at liberty to adduce necessary evidence if he chooses to do so to prove his innocence or claim. The petition is devoid of merits.
8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
_____________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J
Date:26-09-2012 YCR
[1] AIR 2003 PUNJAB AND HARYANA 344
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to allow a Section 91 Cr.P.C. petition seeking forensic examination of ink age after the conclusion of the trial.
Whether the filing of a petition under Section 91 Cr.P.C. after the conclusion of trial and posting for arguments warrants interference.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Yash Pal v. Kartar SinghReferred¶10
YASH PAL v. KARTAR SINGH AIR 2003 PUNJAB AND HARYANA 344 · Who else cites this
5 provisions across 4 enactments
Petitioner
Second Respondent
G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
