THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.5913 and 6147 OF 2007 DATED:30.09.2010 Between: M/s.S.Sultan and Company Latter name offered as M/s.Sultan Transport Company Private Limted, Rep., by its Managing Director Syed Sultan, H.No.2-111, Moosapet, Sanathnagar Goods Shed Road, Hyderabad and another .. Petitioners And The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and another .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.5913 and 6147 of 2007 COMMON ORDER: These two petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are filed seeking to quash the proceedings of the IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, dated 23.07.2007, passed in Crl.M.P.Nos.170 and 169 of 2007 in Criminal Appeal Nos.282 and 281 of 2006, respectively. The petitioners are arrayed as accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, in C.C.Nos.1081 of 1999 and 537 of 2000 on the file of the XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. During pendency of the proceedings before the trial Court, Crl.M.P.No.7037 of 1996 in C.C.No.375 of 1994 (Old) (New C.C.No.1081 of 1999) and Crl.M.P.No.7038 of 1996 in C.C.No.354 of 1994 (old) (New C.C.No.537 of 2000) were filed for sending the dishonoured cheques to the handwriting expert for opinion. On dismissal of the said two petitions on 20.01.1997 by the trial Court, the petitioners filed Crl.R.P.Nos.21 and 22 of 1997 before the Court of IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, and the same were allowed on 05.05.1997 directing the trial Court to send the documents in question i.e., the dishonoured cheques to the handwriting expert. As per the directions of the learned Sessions Judge, the trial Court sent dishonoured six cheques along with specimen signatures to handwriting expert, who after examination, gave his report stating that the disputed signatures on the dishonoured cheques and the specimen signatures are one and the same. At this juncture, the petitioners filed Crl.P.Nos.125 and 126 of 2004 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.Nos.1081 of 1999 and 537 of 2000 and this Court by order dated 29.10.2004 dismissing Crl.P.No.125 of 2004 partly allowed Crl.P.No.126 of 2004 quashing the proceedings against the 1st respondent herein i.e., M/s.S.Sultan and Company. Thereafter, the trial Court by judgments dated 11.07.2006 in C.C.No.1081 of 1999 found the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced A-1 to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and sentenced A-2 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 60 days; and in C.C.No.537 of 2000, as the case against A-1 is quashed by this Court as stated supra, A-2 is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 60 days. Questioning the said conviction and sentence, the petitioners filed Crl.A.Nos.282 and 281 of 2006 on the file of the IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. During pendency of the said appeals, petitioners filed Crl.M.P.Nos.170 and 169 of 2007 under Section 391 of Cr.P.C. seeking permission to adduce additional evidence contending that by oversight, the complainant was cross-examined as to the account on which the cheques were drawn and the lower appellate Court by the orders impugned dismissed the said applications with a direction to proceed with the matter. Aggrieved by the same, the present petitions are filed and obtained stay of the proceedings in the appeals. Though the orders of interim stay have not been extended from January 2008, the cases are not taken up by the lower appellate Court on the premise that these petitions are pending and there is no intimation about the non-extension of the stay orders. In that process, even after 16 years of issuance of the dishonoured cheques the respondent/complainant is unable to enjoy the fruits of the litigation and recover the amount due under the dishonoured cheques which were stalled on one pretext or the other. The petitioners, at the time of filing two petitions before the trial Court seeking to send the dishonoured cheques to the handwriting expert for opinion, have not taken any plea with regard to the plea now taken for adducing the additional evidence and, after receipt of opinion from the handwriting expert, proceeded with the matter basing on the very same cheques, and suffered the order of conviction. Though the petitioners filed two petitions before this Court seeking to quash the proceedings against them, as they were unsuccessful in getting the proceedings against them quashed, after conviction the present petitions are filed only to drag on the proceedings, which is nothing but an afterthought. No tenable or valid grounds have been urged to adduce additional evidence. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order at this length of time by exercising the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Both the Criminal Petitions are dismissed. The lower appellate Court is directed to dispose of the Crl.A.Nos.282 and 281 of 2006 pending on its file within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and report compliance to this Court. The Criminal Petitions are, accordingly, dismissed. __________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J 30.09.2010 KH