High Court dismissed criminal petition challenging lower court's refusal to summon witnesses under Cr.P.C. to verify cheque procurement and complainant's lending capacity, dismissing them as lacking merit and delaying tactics.
Refusal to summon witnesses and lower court order upheld; criminal petition 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWELVE
Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5965 of 2012
Between:
Bolisetty Venkateswara Rao
.. Petitioner
AND
The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad & another
.. Respondents
The Court made the following:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5965 of 2012
ORDER:
This criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is intended to be filed against order passed by the Magistrate refusing to summon two witnesses under Section 311 Cr.P.C. at the instance of the accused, in the case relating to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Defence of the accused is stated to be that the cheque in question was obtained by a Sub-Inspector of Police from the accused by keeping him in detention in Police Station. The proposed witnesses are the then Inspector of Police, who has now become Deputy Superintendent of Police, who made enquiry against that Sub-Inspector of Police and who gave report to the Superintendent of Police. The Inspector of Police is not a witness to the fact in issue whether the cheque was obtained in the circumstances stated by the accused. He
is said to have collected certain statements during his enquiry. The basis of the enquiry report is statements of the persons examined by the Inspector and those statements are hearsay insofar as the so-called Enquiry Officer-cum-Inspector of Police is concerned. The enquiry report is based on such hearsay evidence. Therefore, neither evidence of the Enquiry Officer/Inspector of Police nor his enquiry report is relevant and admissible under the provisions of Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
2. The second witness, who is proposed to be summoned is Income Tax Officer for production of Income Tax Return of the complainant in order to find out capacity, etc., of the complainant to lend the amount in discharge of which the cheque is stated to have been issued. The case is pending in the lower Court since the year 2009 for the last three years. The petitioner/accused could have obtained copy of the Income Tax Return of the complainant by invoking provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, and should have confronted the same to the complainant, who is examined in this case as P.W.1. Without doing the said exercise promptly, now the
petitioner wants to drag on the proceedings in the lower Court by filing the present petition at fag end of the case when the matter is posted for arguments. There are absolutely no merits as well as bona fides in the petition filed by the accused in the lower Court. The order passed by the lower Court is not liable to be questioned.
3. Hence, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J
Date: 8th August, 2012
KL
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA
GOVINDARAJULU
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5965 of 2012
Date: 8th August, 2012
KL
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Magistrate erred in refusing to summon witnesses to challenge the manner in which the disputed cheque was obtained.
Whether the proposed evidence would be relevant and admissible to impeach the complainant's capacity.
5 provisions across 4 enactments
Bolisetty Venkateswara Rao
The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad & another
SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
