G. SOMESHWAR RAO versus SAMINENI NAGESHWAR RAO & ANR. ETC.

Citation: [2009] 11 S.C.R. 676 · Decided: 29-07-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 11 S.C.R. 676 
..i.-
A 
G. SOMESHWAR RAO 
v. 
SAMINENI NAGESHWAR RAO & ANR. ETC. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1353 of· 2009) 
B 
JULY 29, 2009 
[S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] 
~· 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -
s.243(2) -
.,, 
Complaint of dishonour of cheque - Accused disputing the 
c 
document, seeking its examination by handwnting expert -
Denied by courts below - On appeal, held.· accused, though 
entitled to fair trial and entitled to lead evidence to defend his 
case, such right is not absolute - Such right cannot be taken 
recourse to for delaying the proceedings - On facts, conduct 
D 
of the accused shows that he intended to delay the disposal 
of the matter- Opportunity granted to the accused to examine 
). -
an expert at his own cost - Evidence Act, 1872 - ss. 45 and 
73 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 21 - Negotiable 
Instruments Act. 1881 - s. 138. 
E 
Respondent No. 1 field a complaint petition against 
the appellant uls. 1348 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 
1881, alleging that the appellant had executed a pronote 
and had also issued a cheque which was dishonored on 
presentation. Appellant contended that the cheque as 
.. 
F well as the pronote were fabricated. He, therefore, filed 
an application for examination of the cheque and the 
pronote by a handwriting expert. The Application was 
dismissed. Revision petition against the order was 
dismissed by High Court. Appellant, thereafter, filed 
G another application for the same purpose, which was 
dismissed by trial court. Revision against the same was 
>- ,, 
also dismissed. Hence the present appeals. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
H 
676 
G. SOMESHWAR RAO v. SAMINENI NAGESHVvAR -577 
RAO & ANR. ETC. 
-). 
HELD: 1. An accused is entitled to a fair trial which 
A 
is a part of his fundamental right as guaranteed under 
Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The concept, 
however, cannot be put to a straight jacket formula. A 
court of law will have to consider each application filed 
by an accused praying for comparison of his signature 
B 
on a disputed document with his admitted signature on 
its own merits. No hard and fast rule can be laid down 
-r ·-.. 
therefor. Section 243 Cr.P.C provides for grant of an 
opportunity to the defondant to lead evidence in his 
• 
defence as also to file a written statement. [Paras 9 and c 
1 O] [682-A-D] 
2. The right of an accused under sub-section (2) of 
Section 243 Cr.P.C. is, thus, not an absolute one. He 
cannot take recourse thereto for the purpose of delaying 
D 
the proceedings. An application filed by an accused must 
---""' 
be for subserving the cause of justice and not for 
subverting the same. [Para 10] [683-A-B] 
3. Appellant had filed two successive applications; 
the second application was, thus, not maintainable. This 
E 
~ 
itself goes to show that he intended to delay the disposal 
of the matter. He could have examined his own expert. 
He may still do so for which, the court shall grant him 
reasonable opportunity. Even now, the court will be 
.., 
entitled to exercise its jurisdiction, if it so thinks fit and 
F 
proper in terms of Section 73 of the Evidence Act. The 
interest of justice wouii:f be subserved if an opportunity 
is granted to the appellant to examine an expert at his 
own costs. If he requisitions the services of an expert, the 
Judge would grant him an opportunity to examine the 
disputed documents, submit a report and examine 
G 
"' _.._ 
himself as a witness in the ~ase preferably on the same 
date. [Paras 13 and 14] [684-E-H; 685-A-B] 
I 
Renu Devi Kedia v. Seetha Devi 2004(6) ALT 429; 
... 
H 
678 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2009] 11 S.C.R. 
A Kalyani Baskar(Mrs.) v. M.S. Sampoomam (Mrs.) (2007) 2 
SCC 258 and T. Nagappa v. Y.R. Muralidhar (2008) 5 SCC 
633, referred to. 
B 
Case Law Reference: 
2004 '"' ALT 429 
\ . 
c2001) 2 sec 258 
c2ooa) s sec 633 
referred to 
referred fo 
referred to 
Para 5 
Para 8 
Para 8 
c 
CRIMINAL AP PELLA TE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
D 
No. 1353 of 2009. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 22.8.2007 of the High 
Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in 
Criminal Revision No. 1039 of 2007. 
WITH 
Criminal Appeal No. 1354 of 2009. 
C. Mukund, Shashank Sharma, Vandana Anand, Bijoy 
E Kumar Jain for the Appellants. 
F 
D. Bharathi Reddy for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. Challenge in this appeal, which arises out of 
S.L.P.(Crl.)No.6278 of 200
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.