HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos.1231, 1232, 1233, 1234 and 1237 of 2011 COMMON ORDER:- The point involved in all these criminal revisions and the parties to the same are common. Hence they are being disposed of by this common order. Petitioners are accused in the concerned criminal cases. 2. Heard Sri Y.V.Krishna Rao who is said to be the proprietor of M/s.Leo Electronics Organisation. Himself and his concern are accused. He appeared in person. The public prosecutor has also been heard. Five calendar cases namely C.C.Nos.81/1998; 79/1998; 77/1998; 78/1998 and 80/1998 pertaining to an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in each case are pending on the file of the Court of the VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad (trial Court). Petitioners are accused in these cases. All the cases ended in conviction in the first instance and they were again remanded by this Court. The matters were again taken up by the trial Court pursuant to the remand order. 3. Thereafter as can be gathered from the impugned orders of the trial Court in all the five cases, the petitioner filed separate applications viz., Crl.M.P.Nos.5149/2010; 5147/2010; 5145/2010; 5146/2010 and 5148/2010 in C.C.Nos.81/1998; 79/1998; 77/1998; 78/1998 and 80/1998 respectively to send two letters one dated 23.04.1997 and the other dated 10.09.1997 to a handwriting expert to find out whether they were written by the persons who were employed by the complainant-company. Their names are also given. All the five petitions purport to have been filed under Section 45 of the Evidence Act. 4. The trial Court dismissed all the petitions by its separate orders dated 22.03.2011 holding that having regard to the defence taken by the petitioner and also laches on their part the petitioners are not entitled to the relief claimed in each petition. Questioning the said five orders the petitioners have come up with these revisions. 5. The stage of the case and the conduct of the petitioner and also the reason given by the trial Court are stated by the trial Court in each of its impugned orders and it would be sufficient to set out what it has stated in para-8 of its order in Crl.M.P.No.5149/2010. “8. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner filed petition to send the cheques to the Expert to determine the age of the ink and it was dismissed. He also filed another petition to summon the documents under Section 91 Cr.P.C. and it was also dismissed. Now this petition is filed stating that sending of the documents mentioned in the petition to hand writing expert is essential to prove the case of the accused. Only in one case i.e., C.C.77/98 the original documents are marked. Admittedly, said Sharma who allegedly signed the said documents is not available even according to both parties. The petitioner/accused did not dispute the signatures of the cheques and he is only disputing the writings with regard to date etc.. It is a matter of evidence whether those cheques were issued towards security for future supplies or not. How sending of letters mentioned in the petition to the hand writing expert would serve any purpose is not properly explained in the petition. The alleged signatory of the letters is not available. The sending of the said letters to the hand writing expert would not serve any purpose. The petitioner did not try to take such steps under the law at the earliest point of time. Even after remand of the matters by the Hon’ble High Court, the petitioner did not choose to make early appearance and try to proceed under law to prove his case. Though the matters were remanded in 2006, the petitioner appeared before the court only in the year 2010. As already stated the petition to summon the documents and persons working in the complainant company were dismissed.” 6. At the time of hearing these revisions at the admission stage, Sri Y.V.Krishna Rao admitted that his defence is that he gave the cheques not towards any subsisting liability, but as security for future supplies to be made by the complainant- company and nothing was due from him to the complainant. After hearing his defence he was specifically asked as to what useful purpose would be served by sending the above documents to the handwriting expert having regard to his defence and how the expert opinion may probablise his defence. There was no proper answer from him. 7. Apart from the above circumstances it may be noted that in para-5 of the grounds of each these petitions it is specifically stated that there is already sufficient evidence on record to establish the defence of the petitioner. If that is so it is not made clear as to what purpose would be served by sending the above documents to the expert. 8. It may also be noted that all the matters are of 1998 and the above mentioned para-8 of the trial Court order would show that the petitioner filed several petitions earlier and all of them were dismissed and he again came up with these petitions at the fag end of the case. The trial Court also observed that though the matters were remanded in 2006 the petitioner appeared before it only in 2010 only after issuance of a non-bailable warrant and he also violated the time frame fixed by this Court and contributed a lot to keep the matters pending. Having regard to all these circumstances the trial Court dismissed all the petitions. The reasons given by the trial Court plus the failure of the petitioner to explain even in these revisions as to what purpose would be served by sending the documents in question to the handwriting expert having regard to his defence would show that the order of the trial Court does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity which calls for interference by this court. 9. Accordingly all these criminal revisions are dismissed at the admission stage. The trial Court shall proceed with the matters expeditiously and dispose of the same keeping in view the earlier time frame fixed by this Court. ______________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J 17th June 2011 CVRK