no admitted signatures of the contemporaneous period. Hence, the petition in Crl.M.P.No.1431/2010 stands closed

CRLRC 561 / 2013CRLRCSR 8432 / 2013
PETITIONERRESPONDENT
D.VENKATA RAMA KRISHNA, W.G.DT.,  VSG.SATYANARAYANA, ELURU & ANR., REP PP.,
PET.ADV. : KASI NAGESWARA RAORESP.ADV. : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
SUBJECT: Other offences not covered aboveDISTRICT:  WEST GODAVARI

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

Criminal Revision Case No.561 of 2013


ORDER:

        This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the docket order dated 13-3-2013 passed in C.C.No.109 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, (Special Mobile Court), Eluru.  This is the second journey of the petitioner to this Court. Earlier, the petitioner approached this Court challenging the order dated 02-01-2013 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1431 of 2010 in C.C.No.109 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, (Special Mobile Court), Eluru. The said revision came to be allowed on 21-02-2013.  The relevant portion of the order passed in Criminal Revision Case No.50 of 2013 reads as hereunder:-
“        Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent-complainant submits that the first respondent-complainant has no objection if the petitioner-accused furnishes the admitted signatures of contemporaneous period within a stipulated time, so that the admitted signatures could be sent to the handwriting expert for comparison with the signatures of the petitioner appearing on the cheque in question.
          Having considered the facts and circumstances,  I am of the view  that some time can be allowed  to the petitioner-accused to furnish  the admitted signatures of contemporaneous period.
          Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is disposed of at the admission stage, permitting the petitioner to furnish his admitted signatures of contemporaneous period before the trial Court within two weeks, failing which, the order impugned in the revision shall hold good”.

2.     The petitioner filed income tax department acknowledgment dated 25.3.2008 for being sent to the handwriting expert for comparison with the admitted signatures.  Admittedly, the acknowledgment dated 25-3-2008 does not contain signature of the petitioner/accused.  Therefore, the learned Magistrate proceeded to pass the following order:-

“        Both parties present.  Accused filed income tax department acknowledgment dated 25/03/2008, where there is no signature column to be signed by the accused.  Form No.2D of accused of 2006 was already sent for comparison to the expert and the same was returned stating that more admitted signatures  are required.  Accused submitted that there are no admitted signatures of the contemporaneous period.
          Hence, the petition in Crl.M.P.No.1431/2010 stands closed”.

3.     There is no flaw in the docket order dated 13-03-2013 passed by the trial Court warranting interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C.

4.     Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed at the stage of admission.
_____________________
B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J

Dt.19-03-2013

RAR


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.