THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.194 of 2025

ORDER:

This revision is filed under Section 438 and 442 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 assailing the order dated 22.01.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.1083 of 2024 in C.C.NI No.193 of 2018 on the file of the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Khammam.

2. Heard Mr. Surya Balu Mahendra, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1.

3. The petitioner is accused arraigned for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

4. Briefly stated the relevant facts of the case are that during the pendency of the calendar case proceedings the petitioner filed miscellaneous petition i.e. Crl.M.P.No.1083 of 2024 under Section 45 of the Evidence Act with a prayer to forward the cheque/Ex.P-1 bearing No.025102 dated 06.09.2016 to Forensic Science Laboratory, Red Hills, Hyderabad for opinion of handwriting expert to elicit whether the signature on it and the signature on the promissory note/Ex.P-6 are one and the same.

The Court having considered the submissions and by observing that the handwriting of cheque was with an endorsement of ‘account closed’ but not for the difference in signature and also there was no reply notice asserting this defence, dismissed the petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contest that the trial Court ought to have extended fair opportunity by forwarding the disputed cheque to the expert which would clinch the material fact. On enquiry by the Court, learned counsel fairly submits that, as per the petitioner the disputed cheque was given in blank as security in another transaction has been misused. Nonetheless, considering the contention that the signature on the cheque is fabricated, prayed for interference.

6. I have perused the materials on record.

7. At the outset, the petitioner is admitting the fact of issuance of promissory note/Ex.P-6 which contains his signature but disputing his signature on the cheque/Ex.P-1 filed the petition. Pertinently, the defence of the petitioner is that, blank cheque was issued towards security in some other transaction has been pressed into service. In normal parlance, though blank, unsigned cheque will not be given or received towards security. This position is an implied admission as to the petitioner/accused’s signature on the cheque. It is an evidentiary principle that admitted facts need not be proved. In that view forwarding a cheque for examining the genuinity of the signature of the petitioner would be unnecessary and redundant. For that reason, the conclusion drawn by the Court below in declining the petition, deserves affirmation.

8. In effect, in absence of merit for consideration much less for admission, this revision is liable to be and is accordingly dismissed.

Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

______________ N.TUKARAMJI,J Date:09-04-2025 ccm