HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1532 OF 2011 Date: 27-07-2011 Between: Smt. Chukka Arogyamma. - - - Petitioner/ Petitioner/ Accused. Versus 1. Thangirala Rajasekhara Reddy. Respondents/ Respondents/ 2. The State of A.P., Rep. By its De-facto Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Complainant. Hyderabad. - - - This Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1532 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. by the Petitioner/Accused against order dated 11-07- 2011, made in Crl. M.P. No.2264 of 2011 in C.C. No.20 of 2007, on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet, whereby the learned l Additional Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet dismissed the plea of the Petitioner/Accused to send the case pronote dated 29-04- 2010, which, according to the Respondent/Complainant was executed by the Petitioner/Accused borrowing certain debt, to hand writing expert for necessary examination and report. 2. The Calender Case was filed to punish the Petitioner/Accused under Section 138 of N.I. Act on the ground that he borrowed amount under the said pronote and later issued cheque in favour of the complainant, when presented before concerned forum while his claim is that the pronote was a created one and there has been no legally existing debt. 3. It is the contention of learned counsel for the Petitioner/Accused that the cheque was issued only with regards to earlier transactions. 4. In the impugned order, it is observed by the trial court that the petitioner waited till the end of the trial of the case filed in the year 2007 and filed the application later disputing the signature on the pronoto and any signature of the Petitioner subsequently taken cannot stand for necessary comparison with the disputed signature and further, it is pertinent to note that admittedly, the cheque was issued by the Petitioner/Accused. With such observations, the petition was dismissed. 5. Therefore, the point for consideration is whether sufficient grounds are there in order to allow the Criminal Revision Case? 6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the Respondent-State has pleaded that the issue is mainly with regards to the question of issuing the cheque but not with regards to the execution of pronote and the order passed by the trial Court is proper and there is no reason to interfere with the same. 7. It is the contention of learned counsel for the Petitioner/Accused that when there is a plea that there has been no legally enforceable debt, unless the pronote is subjected to necessary test, the question of establishing the plea of non-existence of any legally enforceable debt cannot be decided. 8. It is pertinent to note here that admittedly the accused issued the cheque and therefore by virtue of Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, ‘the N.I. Act’) it is to be presumed that he issued the cheque in respect of a legally enforceable debt but the presumption is always rebuttable. Therefore, the Petitioner/Accused is at liberty to take necessary measures in that context. In view of his plea in the case both the aspects are interlinked with each other. If it is proved that the pronote was not executed by the Petitioner/Accused, it automatically disproves the claim of the Respondent/Complainant about the genuineness of the cheque. However, the Petitioner/Accused ought to have taken necessary steps at the earliest point of time instead of waiting for 7 years in doing so, which causes inconvenience to the complainant. 9. Taking into consideration the observations made above, I am of the opinion that the order passed by the lower Court is not correct and further in the circumstances of the case, including the delay caused by the petitioner in prolonging the matter, I feel it is reasonable to allow the Revision imposing necessary costs against the 132 Petitioner/Accused. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed setting aside the order passed in Crl.M.P. No.2264 of 2011 in C.C. No.20 of 2007 by the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet, subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- by the Petitioner/Accused to the complainant. __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J 27th July, 2011. Dsh THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1532 OF 2011 July, 27, 2011 DSH