under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, to send the cheque dated 16.10.2008 to the hand writing expert to compare the signatures appearing thereon with the admitted signatures of him.-The hand writing expert sought for some more admitted signatures of the contemporaneous period. The petitioner failed to furnish the admitted signatures of the contemporaneous period and thereupon, the learned Magistrate closed the petition by order dated 02.01.2013.- 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.




HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.50 of 2013


ORDER:

        This revision is directed against 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, Eluru (Mobile Court). 
The petitioner is the accused.  First respondent is the complainant.  The petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.1431 of 2010 in C.C.No.109 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Eluru (Mobile Court) under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, to send the cheque dated 16.10.2008 to the hand writing expert to compare the signatures appearing thereon with the admitted signatures of him.
Learned Judicial First Class Magistrate allowed the application and directed the petitioner-accused to deposit the required fees and furnish the contemporaneous documents.  The cheque in question and the admitted signatures have been sent to hand writing expert.  The hand writing expert sought for some more admitted signatures of the contemporaneous period.  The petitioner failed to furnish the admitted signatures of the contemporaneous period and thereupon, the learned Magistrate closed the petition by order dated 02.01.2013.
Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused and learned Counsel appearing for the first respondent-complainant.
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 hand writing 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.


______________________________

JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY

21.02.2013

Note: Issue copy within a week.
                                  B/o.
                               Gkv/vjl

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.

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.

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