Telangana High Court
CRLRC/1071/2012 of Vetcha Venkata Sanyasayya Vs Bhogavalli Venkateswararao on 28 December 2012
SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Revision Case No. 1071 of 2012 Between : Vetcha Venkata Sanyasayya. .. Petitioner/Accused And 1. Bhogavilli Venkateswara Rao. .. Respondent/Complainant 2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. ..
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY
Criminal Revision Case No. 1071 of 2012
Between :
Vetcha Venkata Sanyasayya. .. Petitioner/Accused
And
1. Bhogavilli Venkateswara Rao. .. Respondent/Complainant
2. The State of Andhra Pradesh,
rep. by Public Prosecutor,
High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. .. Respondent/Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDYCriminal Revision Case No. 1071 of 2012
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
This Revision is directed against the order dated 14.06.2012 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1534 of 2012 in C.C.No.5 of 2009 on the file ofAddl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chodavaram, whereby andwhere under the learned Magistrate dismissed the application filed bythe petitioner under section 45 and 73 of Indian Evidence Act read with87 and 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
The petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.05 of 2009 on the file ofthe Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chodavaram. He filedpetition under section 45 and 73 of Evidence Act read with Section 87and 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act, to send Ex.P-1/pronote andEx.D-2/receipt to the Handwriting Expert for opinion. The learnedMagistrate, on considering the material brought on record and hearingthe counsel appearing for parties, proceeded to dismiss the petition onthe ground that both the documents are disputed, in which case therewill not be any useful purpose in comparing the signatures appearingon the said documents. The said order is assailed in this CriminalRevision case.
Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learnedcounsel appearing for the first respondent.
It is contended by learned counsel appearing for the petitionerthat the handwritings of the petitioner in Ex.P-1/cheque and Ex.P-2/receipt are required to be examined by the handwriting expert forproper adjudication of the plea taken by the petitioner.
Since both the documents are denied by the petitioner/accused, there will not be any useful purpose in comparing the writings of theaccused appearing on Ex.P-1/cheque with the handwriting appearingon Ex.D-2/receipt, by the Expert. The learned Magistrate consideredthe material brought on record in right perspective and proceeded todismiss the petition. I do not see any illegality or irregularity warrantinginterference of this court in exercise of powers under section 397 and401 Cr.P.C.
Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
_____________________________
B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J
28.12.2012
GM