ORDER:

Questioning the order, dated 08.09.2023, passed in Crl.M.P.No.11 of 2023 in C.C.No.20 of 2018 on the file of the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore, the petitioner/accused filed the present criminal revision case before this Court.

2. The petitioner is facing trial in the above C.C. for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The 1st respondent filed the said complaint against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner is doing business in furniture import goods in the name and style of “Siri Furniture”. The petitioner is also doing another business in the name and style of “Sai Vihar Aqua Needs”. There are business dealings between the petitioner and the 1st respondent. While so, on 01.02.2016 an agreement was executed by the petitioner in favour of the 1st respondent and a settlement was arrived at between them in the presence of elders and thereby, the petitioner agreed to pay an amount of Rs.50.00 lakhs in respect of promissory debts incurred by him to the 1st respondent towards full and final satisfaction of the debts. The petitioner also agreed that he would repay the said amount, after disposing of his lands at Pottupalem of Gudur Mandal, within four months from the date of the agreement, along with interest @ 12% per annum. When the 1st respondent demanded the petitioner to repay the said amount in terms of the agreement dated 01.02.2016, the petitioner issued a cheque bearing No.000010 dated 19.08.2016 for a sum of Rs.40.00 lakhs drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank situated at Nellore in favour of the 1st respondent. When the 1st respondent presented the said cheque through his Banker, the same was returned with an endorsement „funds insufficient”.

3. During the course of trial, the petitioner/accused filed an application in Crl.M.P.No.11 of 2023, under Sections 45 and 45-A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, requesting the Court below to send Ex.P-6 agreement to an expert with regard to the interpolations in the said agreement. The Court below, by virtue of the order impugned in the present revision case, dismissed the petition, holding that no useful purpose would be served by sending Ex.P-6 agreement to an expert.

4. This Court perused the entire material on record.

5. As seen from the entire material on record, This Court is of the considered opinion that even if Ex.P-6 agreement is sent to an expert, no useful purpose would be served, as the petitioner has admitted his signature on the cheque issued by him.

6. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the Criminal Revision Case is devoid of merits and it is liable to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed, at the stage of admission.

As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

____________________ K. SURESH REDDY, J

17th October, 2023 cbs HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURESH REDDY Criminal Revision Case No. 929 of 2023

17th October, 2023 cbs