Telangana High Court
Pinnapurry Narender Reddy vs Pinnapureddy Ram Reddy on 17 October, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5944 of 2024
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') to quash the
order dated 22.04.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.114 of 2024 in
Crl.A.No.34 of 2023 by the learned Principal District and
Sessions Judge, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri District.
2. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner filed
Crl.M.P.No.114 of 2024 in Crl.A.No.34 of 2023 before the
appellate Court under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to
send the cheque bearing No.078249 dated 15.07.2016 to expert
at Forensic Science Laboratory, for comparison and analysis of
age of ink on the said cheque. The appellate Court, after
hearing both sides, vide order dated 22.04.2024, dismissed the
petition on the ground that in the appeal, the appellate Court
will consider only misinterpretation of law or appreciation of
evidence wrongly, but the appellate Court will not consider the
new facts. Further, if the petitioner had any grievance, he
should have filed petition before the trial Court itself but not at
SKS,J
this appeal stage. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner
filed the present criminal petition.
3. Heard Sri Papaiah Peddakula, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent
No.1-State and Sri Bommineni Vivekananda, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
respondent No.2 has obtained a subject cheque from the
petitioner in the year 2008 during a loan transaction, but
conveniently, he filled the blank date portion as 15.07.2016 and
initiated the prosecution against the petitioner. He further
submitted that an opportunity is given to the petitioner to prove
his defence. Even if the opportunity is given to the petitioner,
no prejudice would be caused to respondent No.2, therefore, he
prayed the Court to set aside the order dated 22.04.2024
passed in Crl.M.P.No.114 of 2024 in Crl.A.No.34 of 2023.
5. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the
petitioner relied upon the judgment of High Court of Karnataka
SKS,J
in Nasreen Pasha v. Malik Ahmed 1, wherein in paragraph
Nos.36, 37 and 39, it is held as under:
"Looking to the above said facts and circumstances
of the case and also the evidence on record, the first
appellate Court having come to the knowledge of these
materials, would have properly appreciated the
materials on record and provided an opportunity to
the accused by allowing the application u/s.45 of the
Indian Evidence Act, providing fair trial to the accused
by providing sufficient opportunity to the accused to
prove his defence, whatever may be the minor lapses
on the part of the accused. If the signature on the
cheque is doubtful, then the courts should normally
has acceded to the request of the accused for sending
the cheque for experts' opinion."
6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of respondent No.2 opposed the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the petitioner stating that the claim of the
petitioner to find out the age of the ink in the signature, date
and name of payee is not covered by Section 45 of the Indian
Evidence Act. It is meant only for comparison of the hand
writings and signatures. The relief under request of the
petitioner is not required for the Court to decide the matter in
issue. Hence, the claim for ascertaining the age of the ink is
meaningless. The petitioner is the competent person to say
about the signature, date and name mentioned in the cheque
2016 LawSuit(kar)1489
SKS,J
and hence, the expert opinion is not essential. Therefore, the
trial Court has rightly passed the order, there is no illegality in
the order of the trial Court and prayed the Court to dismiss the
criminal petition.
7. At this stage, it is significant to note the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kambala Nageswara Rao v. Kesana
Bala Krishna 2, wherein in paragraph No.5, it is held as follows:
"5. The application, no doubt, is filed under Section 45
of the Act, and it is not uncommon that such
applications are filed in the suits for recovery of money
on the strength of promissory notes. However, the
prayer in the I.A. is somewhat peculiar. Even while
not disputing his signature on the promissory note,
the petitioner wanted the age thereof to be
determined. Several complications arise in this
regard. The mere determination of the age, even if
there exists any facility for that purpose; cannot, by
itself, determine the age of the signature. In a given
case, the ink, or for that matter, the pen, may have
been manufactured several years ago, before it was
used, to put a signature. If there was a gap of 10
years between the date of manufacture of ink or pen,
and the date on which, the signature was put or
document was written, the document cannot be said
to have been executed or signed on the date of
manufacture of ink or pen. It is only in certain
forensic cases, that such questions may become
relevant. The trial Court has taken correct view of the
matter and dismissed the application."
2014 (1) ALD 521
SKS,J
8. In the light of the submissions made by both the learned
counsel and a perusal of the material available on record, it
appears that the trial Court dismissed Crl.M.P.No.114 of 2024
on the ground that in the appeal, the appellate Court will
consider only misinterpretation of law or appreciation of
evidence wrongly, but the appellate Court will not consider the
new facts. Further, if the petitioner had any grievance, he
should have filed petition before the trial Court itself but not at
this appeal stage.
9. It is specifically contended by the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that there are necessary facilities in the forensic
laboratories along with the experts on the said subject and the
age of the ink can be ascertained in the labs. As observed by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kambala Nageswara Rao
(supra), it is observed that the expert opinion on ink age cannot
be of any help in determining the date of its writing as the
writing could be made at one time and the ink may have been
manufactured years earlier. On this premise, this Court is of
the considered view that the trial Court has rightly passed the
impugned order, therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere
with the order of the trial Court. If the petitioner is so advised,
SKS,J
he can adduce such evidence, as is in his possession, to put
forward his contention.
10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed confirming
the order dated 22.04.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.114 of 2024 in
Crl.A.No.34 of 2023 by the learned Principal District and
Sessions Judge, Bhongir and leaving it open to the petitioner to
substantiate his plea, by raising the same in the written
statement.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand
closed.
_____________
K. SUJANA, J
Date: 17.10.2024
SAI
