APHC010598922022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8762/2022 Between: MADDALA SRI GOWTHAM, S/O. VENKATA LAKSHMI NARAYANA, HINDU, MALE, AGED 36 YEARS, SOFTWARE ENGINEER, R/O. DOOR NO.19-22-5/10, BANK COLONY, BHIMAVARAM, 1 TOWN, BHIMAVARAM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P., AMARAVATHI. 2. NATLA SARVARAYUDU, S/O. MURTHY RAJU, HINDU, MALE, AGED 69 YEARS, R/O. BHIMAVARAM I TOWN, BHIMAVARAM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. MANGENA SREE RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been filed by the Petitioner/Accused, seeking to quash the Order dated 19.10.2022 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1226 of 2022 in C.C.No.450 of 2018 on the file of the Court of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimavaram. 2 2. Heard Sri Mangena Sree Rama Rao, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.1/State. Notice sent to Respondent No.2 was returned as refused. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that the Petitioner herein is the Accused in C.C.No.450 of 2018 on the file of the Court of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimavaram, wherein he has filed Crl.M.P.No.1226 of 2022 under Sections 91 and 311 of Cr.P.C to summon the postman by name B.Durga Bhavani and direct her to cause production of Postman Manifesto (Beat List) dated 20.04.2018. Learned counsel would further submit that the Accused is facing allegations for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and he has taken a defence that notice was not at all served on him before filing of the complaint. To prove the same he has filed the said application and the Complainant reported no objection before the trial Court to allow the application. However, the learned trial Judge dismissed the petition observing that, under Section 92 Cr.P.C he is not a proper authority to issue summons to the Postal Authorities for production of the document. Learned counsel would further submit that the notice alleged to have been sent to the Petitioner was returned with an endorsement “intimation served”, dated 20.04.018 on the very same cover and apart from that, on the said endorsement the Postal Authorities made a tick to “addressee left returned” with some over-writing. Learned counsel would finally submit that the petition may be allowed by directing the proper 3 authorities to consider the request of the Petitioner to prove the said fact before the Court. 4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders. 5. Considering the submissions and a fair look at the material placed on record, the impugned order would show that the Respondent/Complainant did not make any objection to consider the application filed by the Petitioner/Accused before the trial Court. The learned trial Judge has rightly observed that he is not the proper authority under Section 92 Cr.P.C for issuance of summons to the Postal Authorities for production of document. Coming to the facts of the present case, the learned trial Judge observed that the notice which was sent to the Accused prior to filing of the complaint was returned and the same is marked as Ex.P.6 and it was returned with manuscript endorsement as “intimation served” on 20.04.2018. That apart, there is a list of 10 types of reasons for return in a printed form against which “addressee left returned” is ticked and underlined with a Blue colour ink. It is not the case that the notice was returned with an endorsement „refused‟ so that the Accused wanted to prove that notice has not at all come to his notice and he never refused such notice. It is also represented that series of cases were filed against the Accused for the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act and two of such cases were ended in acquittal and the Complainant did not choose to prefer any appeal against such judgments. 4 6. Taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the present case and in the light of the return endorsement, as observed in the impugned Order, this Court feels that it is not necessary to call for the Beat List from the Postal Authorities to prove the said facts. Further, it is not the case of the Petitioner/Accused that it is not his address. 6. In the result, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. The learned trial Judge may appreciate the contentions raised by the Petitioner in his defence and take appropriate decision according to law and dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:03.01.2025 Dinesh 5 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.P.No.8762 of 2022 Dt.03.01.2025 Dinesh