APHC010458212024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3368] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY-FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI CRIMINAL PETITION No: 7300/2024 Between: 1. KUNISETTY SRINIVASULU, S/0 KSL MAHANANDI, HINDU, AGED ABOUT, 54 YEARS. MEDICAL AND REAL ESTATE BUSSINESS, R/O D.NO. 14-1- 104, VINUKONDA RAOD, NARASARAOPET TOWN AND MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT, AMARAVATHI. 2. TUNUGUNTLA SUBBARAO, (CELL NO.9441471561), S/0 RAMULU, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, BUSSINESS, R/0 D.NO. 18-1-10, GUNTUR ROAD, NARASARAOPET TOWN AND MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT ...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT: Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. K. RAM MOHAN RAO Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2. S.DILIP JAYA RAM The Court made the following: 2 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI CRIMINAL PETITION No.7300 OF 2024 ORDER: The Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/Accused U/s.528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to quash the order dated 20.09.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.2244/2024 in C.C.No.583/2019 on the file of learned I Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet. 02. Heard Sri K.Ramamohan Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri A.Sai Rohith, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State/respondent No.1 and Sri S.Dilip Jayaram, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 03. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the accused in C.C.583/2019 for the offence U/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; he filed an application U/s.45 of Indian Evidence Act to send the disputed cheque dated 10.02.2019 to Baba Atomic Research Centre, Bombay to determine the age of the ink on the portion of date of cheque with other particulars. 3 04. The further contention of the petitioner is that he did not issue the cheque to the respondent/complainant on the date borrowed under the cheque; the date on the cheque was subscribed at a later date to file a case against the petitioner/accused; therefore, the cheque was materially altered; hence, the complaint is not maintainable in law for the offence U/s.138 of N.I.Act. 05. The learned Magistrate dismissed the said application. The order of the learned Magistrate would disclose that the complainant issued a statutory notice before the complaint. The petitioner/accused gave a reply notice under Ex.P-4. In the said legal notice, the petitioner/accused admitted that he issued a post-dated cheque to the complainant. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner/accused that at a later point in time the date was materially altered is not sustainable in law and in that view of the matter, there is no need to send the cheque for any expert opinion as prayed by the petitioner/accused. 06. The learned counsel for petitioner would submit that the learned trial Jude did not give any reasons for the dismissal order. The learned trial Judge erred in relying on the reply notice issued by the petitioner/accused. 4 07. Per contra, learned counsel for the unofficial respondent / R-2 would oppose the contention of the petitioner/accused and submit that there are no grounds to interfere with the order of the learned Magistrate. 08. In the light of above rival contentions, the point that arose for consideration in this petition is as under: “Whether order passed in Crl.M.P.No.2244/2024 in C.C.No.583/2019 on the file of learned 1st Additional Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet is not sustainable in law? 09. POINT: The learned counsel for complainant would submit that the drawer, who sign a cheque and hands it over to the payee, is presumed to be liable unless the drawer adduces evidence to rebut the presumption that the cheque has been issued towards payment of a debt or in discharge of a liability, and the presumption arises U/s.139 of N.I. Act. In support of his arguments, he relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court 5 in the case of Oriental Bank of Commerce Vs. Prabodh Kumar Tewari1. 10. The impugned order dated 20.09.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.2244/2024 would disclose that the petitioner/accused gave a reply notice to the statutory notice, stating that he issued a post-dated cheque to the complainant. He did not say that he issued a cheque without date. Therefore, as rightly observed by the learned Magistrate, the question of material alteration regarding the date as claimed by the petitioner/accused would not arise. In those circumstances, this Court do not find grounds to interfere with the order passed by the learned Magistrate. 11. In the light of foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case to invoke section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the order dated 20.09.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.2244/2024 in C.C.No.583/2019 on the file of learned I Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet. Accordingly, the point is answered. 1 MANU/SC/1061/2022 6 12. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ ___ JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI 25.02.2025 psk 7 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI 01 CRIMINAL PETITION No: 7300 OF 2024 Date: 25.02.2025 w psk