The High Court · 2025

Judgment

1. 2 Lekkala Sundararami Reddy, S/o Lekkala Mastan Reddy, Aged 53 years, o"..-iiirrt" Employee, R/o' H.No.1 B-1 1 22, Ashoknagar' Miryalaguda Town' r.I,IONOAOiStTiCi- ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT i#St"t";ii"t"nsrnr, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad. ...RES'ONDENTS Petition under Section 482 of Cr'P'C praying that in the circumstances statedintheMemorandumofGroundsofCriminalPetition,theHighCourtmay L" pf."t"O to quash the order dt.23-02-2022 passed in Crl M P No 3l5ol 2021 rn irl.A.No.21+of 2018 and allow Crl M P No'315 of 2021 as prayed for' I,A. NO: 10F 2022 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstaftces stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to staY all further proceedings in Crl.A.No.214 of 2018 on the file of Vlll Additional Sessions Judge, Miryalaguda t.A. NO: 1 OF 2025

Petition under Secti the circumstances stated the High court may be ple in Crl.P.No.3809 of 2022 I on 482 of Cr.P.C & Section 528 BNSS praying that in in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition' ased to extend the interim order dt. 1811A12023 passed ill further orders. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum- of Grounds of Criminal pEtition and up-on hearing the arguments .Mr' SrnO.i"t.n, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Dr' S Prasanth' Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No 2 and of Mr- K'V Subba Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent No l' of. - The Court made the following: ORDER {sF -"Y THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITI ON No.3 aog 0F 2022 ORDER This Criminal Petition has been filed seeking to quash the order in Crl.M.P. No.3l5 of 2O2l in Crl.A. No.214 of 20l8 dated 23.02.2022 passed by the learned VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Miryalaguda to summon the p.W-1 and wife of p.W_ 1/rcspondeut No.l along with her bank account, bank passbook, bank statement for examination and to send Exs.p_1, D 1, D-2, D-3 and D-4 by taking specimen handwriting of p.W_1 for comparing with the handwriting of p.W-i to expert opinion and after receiving the expert opinion, the said document may bc marked as additional evidence wherein the application hled by the petitioner u,as dismissed.

2. Heard Mr. Sunderasan, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K.V. Subba Reddy, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 ancl Dr. S. prasanth, learned Assistant public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.1 filed C.C. No.925 of 2O1Z on the file of Special 2 Magistrate, Miryalaguda to punish the petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short the Act).

4. Learned Counsel further submits that the specific case of the petitioner is that he borrowed amount from the respondent No- 1 towards security. He has given cheques and the said amount was already paid. Inspite of the same the respondent No.l has not returned the cheques which were issued by the petitioner. On the other hand he filed the complaint.

5. Learned Counsel further submits that during the pendency of the C.C. the petitioner filed application viz., Crl.M.P. No.543 of 2018 under Sections 45 and 73 of Indian Evidence Acl,7872 to send trx.P-1 chque by taking hand writing of respondent No. 1 for expert opinion and the said application was dismissed on 24.O8.2018.

6. Similarly, the petitioner filed other applications viz., Crl.M.P. No.618 of 2018 for recall of P.W-1 for further cross- examination and Cr1.M.P. No.619 of 2OI8 to summon the wife of 1"t respondent to produce her bank passbook and statement of account of Karur Visya bank branch at Miryalaguda and give evidence as D.W-2, the said applications were erroneously 3 dismissed by the trial Court on l2.l).2o1g. Against the above said orders, the petitioner filed revision vide Crl.R.C. No.2g75 of 2018 before this Court. 7 . During the pendency of the Revision petition, learned trial Court without properly appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, and proceed the matter in a hurried marlner, convicted the petitioner for the above said offences and senlenced Lo undergo R.l. for one year and to pay hne amount of Rs.6,00,000/ , in default of payment of fine amount, the petitioner shall undergo S.I. for three months, i.ide its judgment dated 26.10.2018. B. Aggrieved by the above said judgment, the petitioner filed the statutory Criminal Appeal No.2l4 of 2Olg belbre the learned VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Miryalaguda. In the said Appeal, thc petitioner filed application Crl.M.p. No.31S of 2O21 to summon the P.W- 1 and wife of p.W_ 1/ respondent No. 1 along with her bank account, bank passbook, bank statement for examination and to send Exs.p-l, D l, D_2, D_3 and D_4 by taking specimen handwriting of p.W_1 for comparing with the handwriting of p.W I to expert oprnion and after receiving the expert opinion, the said document may be marked as additional evidence. -\ However, the learned Sessions Judge, without 4 properly considering the contention of the petitioner, dismissed the application on 23.02.2022. g. Learned Counsel further submits that if P'W-l and his wife summoned for further examination and'if the document Ex.P-1 and other documents were sent to hand writing expert' the real truth will come out and the said evidence is very much necessary for adjudication of the appeal' If P W-l and his wife were summoned for further evidence, no prejudice would be caused to the respondent No.1. He further submits that during the stage of the Appeal, the parties are entitled to file additional evidence and the same is permissible under law'

10. In support of his contention, Iearned Counsel relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ashok Tsheing Bhutia v. State of Sikkiml. 11 Per contra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 submits that the petitioner filed application Cr1.M.P. No.315 of 2O2l only to drag on the proceedings when the Criminal Appeal No.214 of 2O18 before the learned Sessions Judge is posted for arguments. He further submits that the petitioner had already hled applications before the trial Court r 2011Crl.L.J.l77O +q!ry -f "r/ 5 viz., Criminal M.p. No.543 of 201g which was dismissed on 24.Oa.2018 and the other applications, Crl.M.p. No.618 of 2018 and Crl.M.P. No.619 of 201g which were dismissed on 12.10.2018. However, the petitioner filed only one revision viz., Crl.R.C. No.2B78 of 2018. Aggrieved by the order passed in Crl.M.P. No.619 of 20lg and the above said revision was also dismissed lor non-prosecution on 15.11.201g. As per the conduct ol the parties, the petitioner is not entitled any relief much less the relief sought for in the present revision.

72. The learned Assistant public prosecutor submits that the petitioner has already invoked the jurisdiction before the trial Court and Iiled applications viz., Crl.M.p. No.S43 of 2O1g to send the Ex.P-1 to hand writing experl and Crl.M.p. No.6lg of 2Ol8 sceking to summon the p.W_ 1 for lurther cross_ examination and Crl.M.p. No.619 of 2O1g also to summon the r.l,ife of respondent No. I for giving her evidence and the said order has become final. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to seek the very same relief before the Appellate Court. 6

13. In support of his contention, he relied rlpon by the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ajitsinh Cheuji Rathod v. State of Gujarat2.

14. Having considered the rival contentions and upon perusal of the material available on record, it is evident that the 1st respondent/ complainant hled C.C. No.925 of 2Ol7 before the Special Magistrate, Miryalaguda, alleging that petitioner/ accused had taken a hand loan of Rs 6,O0,000/- and issued cheque No.503641 towards repayment, which, on presentation, was dishonoured. The petitioner denied the borrowal and contended that the cheque had been given as a blank security in 2Ol4 for an earlier loan that was already repaid on 27 .I2.2O74. After trial, the Court convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by judgment dated 26 lO'2O18 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a irne of Rs.6,00,OOO/ .

15. It is further revealed thaL during pendency of C'C No'925 of 2Ol7 , the ppliljoner had hled several applications before the trial Court i.e., Crl.M.P. No.543 of 2018 to send the cheque for 2 (2024) 4 SCC 453 w 7 handwriting examination, Crl.M.p. No.61g of 2O1g to recall PW. 1 for further cross-examination, and Crl.M.p. No.619 of 2018 to summon the complainant,s wife with her bank records. All these applications were dismissed. The order in Crl.M.p. No.619 of 2018 was even challenged in revision as Cri.R.C. No.2878 of 2018, but that revision was dismissed for non_ prosecution on 1S. 1 1.20 1g. As such, the orders passed by the trial Court has became hnal

16. It further reveals that the petitioner filecl an application Crl.M.P. No.3l5 of 2O2l in Crl.A. No.214 of 2018 before the lower appellate court, seeking for the very same reriefs i.e., recall of PW. 1, summoning of the complainant,s wife, and sending the Exs.D-1 to D_4 documents by taking handwriting specimen of P.W-1 to a hand writing expert. The lower appellate Court dismissed the application on 23.02.2022, observing that it was only a repetition of earlier requests which were already decided.

77. In Ashok Tshering Bhutia (Supra) Hon,ble Apex held that additional evidence can be taken at the appellate stage only in exceptional circumstances to cure a procedural rrregularity or to prevent lilty.. .t justice, and not to filI lacunae or reopen 8 issues already adjudicated. In the case on hand the petitioner had suflicient opportunity to defend himself during trial and the petitioner had hled several applications before the trial Court i.e., Cr1.M.P. No.543 of 2018 to send the cheque for handwriting examination, Cr1.M.P. No.618 of 2018 to recall PW. 1 for further cross-examination, and Crl.M.P. No.619 of 2018 to summon the complainant's wife with her bank records and.the same were dismissed by the trial Court and the said orders attained {ina1ity.

18. In Ajitsinh Chehuji Rathod (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Section 391 of Cr.P.C. cannot be used to collect defence evidence belatedly once trial opportunities are exhausted.

19. For the foregoing reasons, this Court of the view that it does not hnd any irregularity and illegality in the impugned order dated 23.O2.2022.

21. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. However, the learned Sessions Judge, Miryalaguda uninfluenced by any of the observations made in the impugned order dated

23.02.2022 or in the present order the Appeal may be decided '..'.. 9 on merits, the petitioner is granted liberty to raise all the grounds u,hich are available under 1aw in the Criminal Appeal Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Criminal Petition, shall stand closed. SD/- A.H.S. GOWRI SHANKAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// \ \ I l SECTION OFFICER To, 1 . The Vlll Additional Sessions Judge, Miryalaguda 2. The Special lVlagistrate, Miryalaguda. 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

4. One CC to Mr. G. Sundaresan, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Mr. K.V. Subba Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies kam,/nvb M/ HIGH COURT DATED:2510812025 -\ l-r t;. o() c 4 siP 2025 t Or ORDER CRLP.No.3809 of 2022 I I i l I DISMISSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION 1 3 q