Telangana High Court
Resu Krishna vs The State Of Telangana And Another on 6 June, 2022
Bench: K.Lakshman
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 91 OF 2020
ORDER:
Heard learned party in person, Learned Public
Prosecutor and learned Counsel appearing for the 2nd
respondent.
2. This Revision case is filed challenging the
order dated 03.10.2019 in Crl. M.P.No.76 of 2016 in
Crl. Appeal No.21 of 2016.
3. The petitioner herein, de facto complainant,
had filed a complaint under section 200 of Code of
Criminal Procedure and learned Magistrate in turn
referred the same to Police Station, Mahabubabad,
under section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure,
who in turn registered a case in Crime No.150 of 2006.
On completion of investigation, the Investigating
Officer had laid charge sheet against the 2nd
respondent. The same was taken on file in C.C.No.48
of 2020 (old No.517 of 2007) against the 2nd
respondent for the offences under sections 406, 420,
422, 426 IPC and section 4 of A.P. Chit Funds Act.
4. The learned Principal Judicial Magistrate of
First Class, Mahabubabad, vide judgment dated
11.01.2016 acquitted the 2nd respondent. Being
aggrieved by the said judgment, the petitioner
herein/de facto complainant had preferred the appeal
vide Crl. Appeal No.21 of 2016.
5. During pendency of the said appeal, the
petitioner herein had filed a petition under section
311A of Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section
45 of Indian Evidence Act to send Ex.P3 for Forensic
Lab on the ground that the said Ex.P3 is a vital
document, the handwriting of respondent No.1 and his
family members is there. Their signatures are also
there in the chit passbook/Ex.P3. The original
passbook was also signed by the 2nd respondent and
his family members and received the amount towards
the chit and the said fact was elicited by the learned VI
Additional Sessions Judge, Mahabubabad. Therefore
on the said ground, sought to send the document
Ex.P3 to Forensic Lab.
6. The said application was opposed by the 2nd
respondent stating that the petitioner herein has not
given any reasons, much less, plausible reasons for
sending the said document to Forensic Lab. There is
no explanation by the petitioner herein for not taking
steps during the pendency of the C.C. No.48 of 2010.
7. Vide impugned order dated 03.10.2019 the
learned VI Additional Sessions Judge, Mahabubabad,
has dismissed the said application on the ground
petitioner herein has not mentioned any reasons,
much less, satisfactory reasons for sending the
document to the FSL and there is no answer from the
petitioner herein in not filing the said application
during the pendency of the said C.C. No.48 of 2010.
The Appellate Court further held that it fails to
understand as to what material on record the
petitioner wants to connect such Expert opinion,
especially when there is no signature or handwriting of
respondent No.2 herein in Ex.P3, as rightly opined by
the trial Court. The petitioner failed to explain as to
how the relief sought, even if granted, would establish
the culpability of respondent No.2 for the offences with
which he was charged. The opinion of Expert is only
advisory in nature and it cannot bind the Court.
8. Now, the learned party in person submits
that the Court below failed to appreciate the
contentions raised by the petitioner herein, more
particularly, the grounds on which the said application
was filed. The Court below erred in dismissing the
application. Ex.P3 is a vital document as it contains
the signature of 2nd respondent and his family
members and their handwriting is also there in Ex.P3.
No prejudice will be caused to the 2nd respondent if the
said document is sent to FSL. Whereas the learned
Counsel for the 2nd respondent and learned Public
Prosecutor opposed the present application on the
ground that the Court below rightly dismissed the said
application on consideration of both facts and law.
9. As stated above, the petitioner herein had
filed the above said application vide Crl. M.P. No.76 of
2016 in Crl. Appeal No.21 of 2016 seeking to send
Ex.P3 for FSL. According to him, it contains the
signature and handwriting of the 2nd respondent and
his family members.
10. A perusal of charge sheet would reveal that
the allegation against the 2nd respondent is that, the
2nd respondent/accused is a Money lender, running a
private chits without getting registration as per A.P.
Chit Funds Act. The petitioner herein and others
joined as members in the said chit. He has
participated in the auction and declared as he was
bidder. PW.2 stood as guarantor. In spite of several
requests, the accused failed to pay the prized chit
amount. Thus, the accused committed cheating,
played fraud and mischief and also committed criminal
breach of trust, apart from committing the offence
under section Chit Funds Act.
11. The learned Magistrate specifically held
according to the petitioner herein, Ex.P3 is a crucial
document, but he did not send it to the Expert at the
earliest point of time. PW.5 Investigating Officer also
admitted that the petitioner herein/PW.1 has not given
any documentary evidence to him. The Investigating
Officer did not collect any documentary evidence from
the house of the accused. PW.1 did not file copy of
Ex.P3 along with private complaint before the Court.
With the said findings, the Court below acquitted the
2nd respondent/accused. The petitioner herein filed
the said application seeking to send the same to
Expert. As rightly held by the Appellate Court, the
petitioner herein failed to mention
reasonable/satisfactory reasons for sending the said
document to Expert. He has not given any reason for
not filing the said application along with private
complaint filed under section 200 of Code of Criminal
Procedure and also during pendency of the said C.C.
No.48 of 2010. The petitioner herein has also not
explained as to what material on record the petitioner
wants to connect such Expert opinion, especially when
there is no signature or handwriting of respondent
No.2 in Ex.P3. As rightly held by the Appellate Court if
the relief is granted, the petitioner is not in a position
to establish the culpability of 2nd respondent for the
offences alleged.
12. It is relevant to note that as per Section
311A of Code of Criminal Procedure, if a Magistrate of
the first class is satisfied that, for the purposes of any
investigation or proceeding under this Code, it is
expedient to direct any person, including an accused
person, to give specimen signatures or handwriting, he
may make an order to that effect. Whereas, the
petitioner herein failed to file said application during
the pendency of C.C. No.48 of 2010 before the learned
Magistrate. He has filed the present application under
section 311A of Code of Criminal Procedure before the
Appellate Court. Therefore, the said proviso is not
applicable. Even section 45 of Indian Evidence Act
deals with the opinion of Expert. As rightly held by the
Appellate Court, the petitioner herein failed to explain
the reason for seeking such relief. Therefore,
according to this Court, the impugned order is a
reasoned order and well founded. The petitioner
herein failed to make out any ground to interfere with
the said order by this Court in the present revision
case. In view of the above discussion, this criminal
revision case is liable to dismissed.
13. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is
dismissed.
14. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, pending
if any in this Criminal Revision Case, shall stand
closed.
_________________
K. LAKSHMAN, J
06.06.2022
BDR
