O R D E R

This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the revision petitioner, who is arrayed as the accused in C.C.NI No.11745 of 2022, seeking to set aside the order dated 09.02.2026 passed in Crl.M.P. No.11 of 2025 by the XI Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hyderabad (trial Court).

2. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, seeking the Court to send Ex.P1 cheque bearing No.000318 dated 01.12.2019 for Rs.9,00,000/-, drawn on ICICI Bank, Kothapet, for expert opinion, wherein the petitioner contended that the signature appearing on the said cheque is not his, asserting that the cheque was stolen from his office and that the signature was forged, and therefore requested the trial Court to send the said cheque for expert opinion.

3. On the other side, the respondent opposed the petition by filing a counter, stating that although the complainant filed his chief affidavit on 02.01.2023, the accused took several adjournments before cross-examining the complainant on 08.11.2024 and 05.12.2024. Subsequently, after closure of evidence, the accused filed a recall petition and further cross-examined the complainant on 26.09.2025. He further contended that the accused never raised any dispute with regard to the signature on Ex.P1 cheque during the cross-examination of 08.11.2024 and 05.12.2024 and that the accused had earlier filed Crl.M.P. No.573 of 2025 to summon the postman, which was dismissed on 07.01.2026, and thereafter filed the present petition in Crl.M.P. No.11 of 2025 seeking expert opinion. The trial Court, after hearing both sides, dismissed the petition on the ground that the petitioner had not filed any admitted or contemporaneous signatures for comparison along with the petition and that no suggestion was put in the cross-examination regarding the alleged theft of the cheque, and that the signature on the cheque was never disputed during the course of trial. Aggrieved by the said dismissal, the petitioner has filed the present Revision Case.

4. Heard Mr. N. Venkateswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. M. Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing respondent No.1- State.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the trial Court erred in dismissing the petition and failed to appreciate the burden of proof lies upon the petitioner to rebut the evidence adduced by the respondent and that the specific case of the petitioner is that the cheque in question was not signed by him, and that the same was stolen from his office and subsequently misused. The petitioner had, in fact, lodged a complaint with the police regarding the stolen cheque and had also intimated the concerned bank authorities to stop payment of the said cheque. He further contended that though the cheque was returned with the endorsement “Funds Insufficient” and not “Signature Differs”, the said endorsement by the bank is not conclusive on the issue of genuineness of the signature. Therefore, prayed the Court to allow the Criminal Revision Case by setting aside the order dated 09.02.2026.

6. Notice was served to the respondent, but none appeared on behalf of the petitioner.

7. Having regard to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, and upon perusal of the material available on record, it is noted that the criminal case pertains to the year 2022. The counter averments filed by the respondent before the trial Court indicate that no suggestion was put to the complainant during the earlier cross-examination with regard to the alleged theft of the cheque and that no complaint was lodged with the police regarding the alleged stolen cheque. However, the petitioner subsequently recalled PW.1 and cross-examined him on the aspect of the signature on the cheque, but even thereafter, the petitioner did not immediately file the present petition. It is only after the dismissal of Crl.M.P. No.573 of 202