HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Crl.R.C.No.2029 of 2009 Date: 03-12-2009 Between: R. Venkata Ramaiah .. Petitioner/Accused And M/s gurudeep Filling Station NTPC and another .. Respondents. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Crl.R.C.No.2029 of 2009 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order, dated 10-11-2009 in Crl.M.P.No.850 of 2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Karimanagar whereby and whereunder the petition filed by the petitioner to condone the delay of 588 days, has been dismissed. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The petitioner is facing trial in C.C.No.475 of 2004 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Godavarikhani, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. When the trial was proceeding on, the petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.1450 of 2007 praying to send the disputed cheque (Ex.A-1) to the handwriting expert for his opinion as to whether there is any material alteration in respect of the month underneath the signature in the cheque. Earlier the petitioner filed Crl.P.No.2822 of 2005 to quash the proceedings and the said petition was dismissed by this Court on 23-08-2006. Thereafter, the complainant (PW- 1) filed his chief affidavit on 05-12-2006. The matter was dragged till 06-07-2007 to cross-examine PW-1 (complainant). PW-1 was partly cross-examined on that day. The learned Magistrate, holding that the petitioner replied to the notice issued by the complainant, but no plea of alternation in the cheque was taken in that reply and by further holding that the evidence on both sides is not yet completed, dismissed Crl.M.P.No.1450 of 2007, through the order, dated 14-08-2007. Then the petitioner filed Revision before the Sessions Court challenging the order passed by the learned Magistrate along with Crl.M.P.No.850 of 2009 with a delay of 588 days to condone the delay. In the said petition, the stand of the petitioner is that he was working in Nellore District and that he was under an impression that his counsel had filed the revision and that when he recently went to Godavarikhani and enquired with his counsel, he was learnt that the file was misplaced and his counsel could not file the revision in time. In the counter, the first respondent-complainant had stated that the petitioner had attended the Court on several dates after passing the order on 14-08-2007 and his contention that the file was misplaced in the office of his counsel is not correct. The learned Sessions Judge holding that the ground stated by the petitioner that the file could not be traced immediately and as such his counsel could not file the revision appears to be not reasonable, dismissed the said delay condonation petition through the impugned order. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is aged about 65 years and that the material alternation in the cheque is visible. Admittedly, the petitioner is a literate person. He signed in English in the vakalatnama. His contention that he was under the impression that his counsel had filed the revision and he could not contact his counsel for 588 days cannot be believed. The petitioner failed to explain the delay. In the circumstances, I feel that the learned Sessions Judge rightly passed the impugned order and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. However, after completion of the evidence of the complainant, if any application is filed to refer the disputed cheque to the handwriting expert, this order does not come in the way of the learned Magistrate considering the plea of the petitioner to send the cheque to the handwriting expert to verify whether there is any material alteration in the cheque or not and it is left to the discretion of the learned Magistrate to pass appropriate orders. Subject to the above observation, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. ____________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J Date: 03-12-2009 YCR