IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.910 OF 2010 BETWEEN: Shaik Malinbi W/o. Late Johny …. Petitioner AND State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor of High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderbad and another …. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.910 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: The accused in C.C. No.1018 of 2004 on the file of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada seeks to question order dated 31-03-2010 passed in Criminal M.P. No.1127 of 2010 therein, by filing only docket proceedings relating to final result without filing certified copy of the order passed by the lower Court giving reasons for such result. 2. The case pending in the lower Court is one relating to offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short, NI Act). It is the petitioner’s case that the cheque in question does not contain his signature and that when a blank cheque was given as security to the complainant, writings and signature on the cheque were forged by PW-2 Bommu Raja Sekhar in collusion with the complainant. Therefore, the petitioner / accused wanted that the disputed cheque should be sent to an expert for comparison of writings and signature therein with writings and signatures of PW-2. 3. At this stage, it may be noted that the cheque was dishonoured on the ground of insufficiency of funds in the account of the accused. It was not dishonoured by banker of the accused on the ground of signature not tallying. Therefore, it is immaterial for the Court to send the cheque in question for any comparison of signatures. All the more, it is also irrelevant for deciding the case under Section 138 of the NI Act to make comparison of signature in the disputed cheque with the signature of PW-2. 4. Prayer in the petition filed before the lower Court is totally outside the scope of enquiry in a case relating to the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act. It is evident that one petition or the other was being filed in the lower court by the accused in this case of the year 2004 with a view to drag on the proceedings. I absolutely see no bona fides much less merits in the petition filed by the accused in the lower Court as well as in this revision. 5. Hence, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. ___________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU, J June 16, 2010. KTL