Kadambala Gopala Krishna vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Heard both sides.

The petitioner herein is the solitary accused in CC No.90 of 1997 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ichapuram. He is prosecuting for the offences under Food Adulteration Act. According to the prosecution, the accused was said to be running a make-shift hotel in which he had been selling eatables which were adulterated.

During the course of the trial, two documents i.e., Exs.P5 and P6 were marked on which the prosecution seeks to rely for showing that the accused has been running that hotel which the accused denied. During the examination of PW3, who is no other than the Food Inspector concerned, it was suggested to him that he forged the signature purported to be that of the accused in Ex. P6. In regard to Ex.P5, it was suggested that while the name of the father of the accused was found in it as the person paying the licence fee, the name of the accused and the words ''son of have been added and forged therein.

The accused filed Crl. MP No.591 of 1999 requesting the Court to send these documents to handwriting expert for comparison of the impugned writings with the admitted writings of PW3 and the accused. The Court rejected this request.

The Court below, as would appear from the order passed in this regard, was weighed by the fact that during the course of cross-examination of PW3, it was suggested on behalf of the accused that his signatures were obtained by the prosecution on the pretext of granting licence to his new hotel, from which it could be inferred that the accused had admitted those signatures on Exs.P5 and P6. It may be mentioned here that the accused during cross-examination of PW3 had made some suggestion that he had personal animosity with the accused. It is not disputed that these documents are important for the prosecution to prove its case against the accused.

When the accused made a specific suggestion that the writting on those documents which are crucial have been forged by the official concerned or somebody at his instance, the request for sending the documents for comparison by handwriting expert should not have been treated in a casual manner. The impugned order shows that the learned Magistrate mainly went by the suggestion said to have been made by the Counsel for the accused during the cross-examination of PW3 from which admission on the part of the accused of those documents can be inferred. First of all, it is pertinent to mention here that suggestions made by the Counsel for the accused cannot constitute substantive evidence of facts suggested which can be used against the accused for any purpose.

Considering these circumstances and in view of the fact that serious allegations. are made against PW3 in respect of those documents, it appears that the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ichapuram erred in refusing to send the documents for comparison by handwriting expert, to secure the ends of justice, it appears necessary that these documents may be subjected to test by the handwriting expert and under the circumstances this petition has to be allowed.

The order of the learned Magistrate dated 19-4-1999 passed in Crl. MP No.591 of 1999 in CC No.90 of 1997 is quashed, and the learned Magistrate shall send the documents in question for comparison as requested in the petition filed in this behalf.