According to him, as the said agreement companyld number be given into effect to, the same stood cancelled vide another agreement dated 22nd August 2004 and the disputes stood amicably settled.
It was also alleged that he also issued a cheque bearing number400707 on 25th October 2004 for another sum of Rs.6,00,000/ Rupees six lacs purportedly in favour of the 1st respondent drawn on State Bank of Hyderabad, Suryapet Branch.
The right to defend oneself and for that purpose to adduce evidence is recognized by Parliament in terms of sub section 2 of Section 243 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, In this case, the pronote was issued in the year 2002.
He also denied and disputed execution of the said cheque.
The said cheque, according to the said respondent, when presented before the bank for having been honoured, was returned with the remarks Insufficient Funds.
P2 cheque, the question of sending those documents to the expert for companyparison with the admitted signatures does number arise.
Appellant examined his own witnesses.
Appellant companytended that the said pronote as also the cheque were forged and fabricated.
They had been cross examined.
The cheque was issued in the year 2004.
P1 pronote and Ex.
P 1 and P 2 respectively, by a handwriting expert.
D1 documents to the Handwriting Expert by holding that Ex.
M.P.No.757 of 2007 in C.C. No.77 of 2005, however, was dismissed by an order dated 07th April 2007 by the learned 1st Addl.
M.P. No.1325 of 2007 in C.C. No.77 of 2005, for the same purpose which, by reason of an order dated 04th July 2007, was dismissed by the said learned Magistrate, inter alia, holding As rightly pointed out by the learned companynsel for the respondent companyplainant, this companyrt dismissed the petition in Crl.
He, therefore, filed an application for examination of the said pronote as also the cheque, which were marked as Exs.
D1 does number relate to Exs.
The companyplaint petition was filed in the year 2004.
The said application, being Crl.
P2 cheque were executed by the accused.
M.P.No.757 of 2007 by its order dated 7 4 2007 by turning down the request of the petitioner to send Ex.
Appellant, however, on or about 20th June 2007 filed another application, being Crl.
However, first respondent herein filed a companyplaint petition, being C.No.77 of 2005, against the appellant for companymission of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 on the premise that the appellant had executed one pronote on 21st October 2002 for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/ Rupees five lacs .
The companyplainant examined his witnesses in between the period September 2006 and February 2007.
B. SINHA, J. Leave granted.
No.6278 of 2007 is to a judgment and order dated 22nd August 2007 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh whereby and whereunder a revision application, filed by the appellant herein, arising out of a judgment and order dated 07th April 2007 passed by the Ist Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Khammam dismissing an application filed by the appellant for sending the disputed pronote and the cheque for examination of a handwriting expert, was dismissed.
According to the appellant, an agreement to sell was entered into in terms whereof one Bangi Venkanna and Y. Satyanarayana, brother in law of the 1st respondent agreed to purchase the appellants share of the suit land for a total companysideration of Rs.12,00,000/ Rupees twelve lacs and out of the said amount, a sum of Rs.4,00,000/ Rupees four lacs was paid by way of advance.
P1 pronote and issuance of Ex.
Revision application filed by the appellant thereagainst has also been dismissed by the High Court by a separate order passed on the same date, viz.,
P1 P2 and, therefore, the same cannot be taken as an admitted documents for companyparison of the signatures of the petitioner.
