HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL R.C. NO.4 OF 2005 Date: 12.03.2010 Between: P.V. Ramana ……Petitioner And: Puthakayala Ambikeswara Rao and another ……Respondents. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL R.C. NO.4 OF 2005 ORDER: The petitioner is the sole accused. He was found guilty for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act by both the courts below and was convicted. The trial court i.e., Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Tekkali imposed sentence of Simple Imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs.2,000/- on the accused. In appeal, the lower appellate court i.e., the II Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Tract Court), Srikakulam altered sentence of imprisonment from six months to three months. Out of fine amount of Rs.2,000/-, the lower appellate court directed payment of Rs.1,500/- to P.W.1/complainant towards compensation. Ex.P-1 is cheque dated 12.09.1998 for Rs.30,000/- issued by the accused in favour of the complainant. The accused disputes his signature in the cheque. It is contended that the courts below should have taken steps for sending the disputed document Ex.P-1 to handwriting expert and that the courts below, instead, functioned as handwriting experts and compared disputed signature in Ex.P-1 with signatures of the accused contained in Ex.P-6 postal acknowledgment and Ex.P-7 letter. Irrespective of making such comparison of signatures by the court, sending disputed document Ex.P-1 to handwriting expert will not arise at all, because banker of the accused did not dispute signature of the accused in Ex.P-1 cheque. The cheque was bounced not because signature of the accused therein did not tally but because of insufficiency of funds. When the banker does not dispute signature of the executant in Ex.P-1 cheque, it is not necessary for the court or for the complainant to get signature of the accused in Ex.P-1 confirmed by sending the same to handwriting expert. It is stated that the petitioner lost his cheque book containing the leaf Ex.P-1. The accused did not give any report to the police on the alleged loss of cheque book. According to the complainant, the accused became liable to the tune of Rs.46,894/- to the complainant by 16.08.1998 and the accused gave the cheque on 12.09.1998 for Rs.30,000/- towards part of the said liability. Both the courts below considered this aspect and came to conclusion on facts that Ex.P-1 cheque is supported by legally enforceable liability. Thus, there are absolutely no valid grounds for the Revision Petitioner in this Revision Case. The judgments passed by both the courts below are legal, regular and supported by valid reasons. In the result, the Revision Case is dismissed. ___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J. Date:12.03.2010. Gk. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL RC NO.22 OF 2005 Date:12.03.2010. Gk.