JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. G. Rama Gopal, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. S. Dushyanth Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. Srikanth Reddy Ambati, leaned counsel for respondent no. 2-Complainant.

2. The petitioner has moved the Court for the following relief:

“..to call for the records pertaining to the order dated 24.07.2013 in Crl.R.P.No.11 of 2013 on the file of the II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam in confirming the Order dated 12.03.2013 in Crl.M.P.No.638 of 2013 in CC No.171 of 2011 on the file of the II Special Magistrate Court, Visakhapatnam and quash the same in the interest of Justice, consequently, allow Crl.M.P.No.638/2013 in CC No.171/2011 and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

3. The petitioner had taken Rs.15,00,000/- from the respondent no.2 and had issued three cheques for Rs.5,00,000/- each in lieu thereof. On presenting the cheques to the Bank, the same were not honoured leading the respondent no.2 to file complaint under Sections 190(1)(a) and 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for offences punishable under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).

4. During trial, besides oral evidence some documents were also produced by the parties. The receipt issued by the respondent no.2 for Rs.2,00,000/- was also filed being Ex.D1, dated 05.01.2009. The respondent no.2 in his deposition denied the signatures on the said receipt. The petitioner, thereafter, filed a petition for sending Ex.D1- receipt to handwriting expert to ascertain the genuineness of the signature of the respondent no.2. After hearing the parties, the Special Magistrate Court-II, Visakhapatnam, has rejected the prayer by order, dated 12.02.2013 passed in Crl.M.P.No.638 of 2013 in CC No.171 of 2011. Questioning the same, the petitioner filed Criminal Revision Petition No.11 of 2013 which has also been dismissed by the II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam by order dated 24.7.2013 and aggrieved by the same, the present criminal petition has been filed by the Petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent no.2 has denied his signature but it has wrongly been done and thus, the only way of determining the genuineness of the document/hand writing is by sending it to a handwriting expert, which has wrongly been rejected. It was submitted that there is rebuttable presumption under the Act with regard to the amount for which any cheque issued by the accused is not honoured for whatever reason there may be. Learned counsel submitted that the expert advice would have shown that the complaint of the respondent no.2 was frivolous and not maintainable in law. Further it was submitted that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent no.2 if a report is called from the handwriting expert.

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the Court has rightly held that even if the report is called from the handwriting expert, it is for the Court to take a call on the same when there is other substantial evidence of the parties and thus, in the order it is stated that on the issue as to whether the signature on the receipt was genuine or not, would be taken at the time of Judgment, which cannot be faulted as it is a mixed question of fact and law.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 submitted that the so called receipt is neither bearing any date and there is no attestation to the receipt and the same also does not bear the signature of the accused. He contended that the same would clearly indicate that there was no reliability attached to the document. It was further submitted that the receipt also did not indicate whether it was prior to filing of the complaint or subsequent to the complaint. Learned counsel submitted that the Court below has also indicated a vital aspect of there being delay in filing of the pet