I IN ThE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DI IARWAD DATED THIS ThE 12111 DAY OF OCTOBER 2011 BEFORE ThE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.109932011 BETWEEN: Sri. Dareppa So Balappa Kamaldinni. Age: 41 years. 0cc: Petty Business. Rio. Hanagandi. Tal: Jamakhandi, Dist: Bagalkot. P1: [[[lONER (By Shri. Srinand A. Paehhapure. Advocate.) ANt): Sri. Ishwarayya Balayya 1 liremath. Age: 54 years. 0cc: Tea Business. Rio: Rabakavi. Tat: Jamakhandi. Dist: Bagalkot. RESPONDENT (By Shri.N.L .l3aiakurki. Advocate) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to set aside the order dated 08/071201 1 passed by the Pd. Civil Judge. (Sr.l)ni. Jamkhandi. in Cr!.A.No.4:2006 This petition coming on for admission this day. the Court made the following: ORDER I leard the learned eoun%el lbr the petitioner and the matter is disposed ofat the stage oladmission. 2. l3 an earlier order of this Court. dated 2Th 1 .2011. on the contro’ ers> whether the cheque in question had been signed and filled in b the accused. since it was ehementl> contended bs the present petitioner. who is the accu%ed. that a blank cheque was signed which as sought to be misused b> the complainant and the writing sas not tilled in h> the accused. there was a specific direction Ii> this Court that the w ritinu on the cheque he sent to a hand’s riting expert for a comparison s ith the signature of the accused for a report whether the writing was filled in by the accused in the same ink, rendered on the same day. On an application by the accused in this regard before the lower Appellate Court. the Court below has directed that the specimen signature of the accused. which has been obtained, along with the wiginal cheque he sent to the Iorensic Science I ahoratory. Bangalore. for its report without an> speei lie direction 11w a comparison of the Signature with the particulars in the cheque to ascertain whether the particulars therein was filled up by the same person. on the same day and wa of the same ink. I he learned counsel 11w the petitioner would contend that this was a necessary instruction liiel. owihi to ha’ e been pros ided by the impugned order and in the absence of which the direction issued by this Court is not complied uh \o doubt this Court Ii t’ opined by its order dated 2. 1.2(11) that it would he in the Ihe of the circumstance that the complainant had contended that the sinmture and the particulars on the cheque was filled in by the accused hinmel I on the same day and the signature indeed was not in disl ne by tht. accused. It is the particulars on the cheque Ieaiwhieh :. : sought to he disputed and it is therelbre claimed that it is ‘ety si.• 1 ifieani lbr a report •.s to the particulars on the cheque being filleu in by some other anti not the petitioner accused. 4 In this ‘iew of the ii .;tt:r no doubt it we wld he necessars to issue an instruction u’ :he lahoraton to nhich the document is being sent br a comparis ii with the specimen i..mture br a finding as to whether the particul. is on the cheque leaf are also by the signatory and filled in on th same day. AecordimUy the Court below is directed to issue furth.. r instructions ais aho e to the laboratory. I lowe er. it is ftirther ohsts ed by this Couri that it is not 4 unusual in huiness practices that a cheque ma> be tilled in by one and signed by another. 1 ime and again this aspeet of the nuttier has been throii n up in se eral matters before this Court. 1 heretbre, e en ifthere should be a report to the elThct that the signature is not by the same person “ho has tilled in the particulars of the cheque, it ould not señotisly take aay the presumption as to the consideration for hich the cheque as issued. in the light of the tenor of Section 139 ofthe Negotiable Instruments Act 1881. and gi en the interpretation by the Supreme Court of the said settion insofar as the scope of Section 139 of the Act is concerned. in the ease of Rangappa %s. Mohan. AIR 2010 Supreme Court 1 8Q8. thw loser Court may keep the same in With that obsenation the petition stands disposed of 3d!- JUDGE Mrk