IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.8434 OF 2009 Between: Aslam Khan, S/o. Saleem Khan ..... PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh and another ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.8434 OF 2009 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel. 2. It is stated that Criminal Revision Petition No.122 of 2009 was filed on the file of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, and the same was dismissed. But, however, the said fact was suppressed. 3. Be that as it may, even on merits in the light of the reasons recorded by the learned X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, in Crl.MP.No.2347 of 2009 in C.C.No.320 of 2006, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is not a fit matter to be interfered with. In fact the learned Judge at paragraph No.3 observed as hereunder: “The admitted signature of the petitioner/accused on the impugned cheque was well disputed signature of his on Ex.P-7 are readily available to this Court and this Court can compare the admitted and disputed signatures of the petitioner U/Sec. 73 of Indian Evidence Act and thereby can come to an opinion and when the Court has got that power, in such a case absolutely there is no necessity for referring the documents containing the disputed and admitted signatures of the petitioner/accused to Hand Writing Expert for comparison and for the opinion. If, this Court feels any difficulty to come to a conclusion after making such comparison U/Sec. 74 of Indian Evidence Act, then this Court shall take steps suo moto for sending of the documents containing the admitted and disputed signatures of the petitioner/accused to the Hand Writing Expert for getting necessary opinion which may be helpful to this Court to arrive to a perfect conclusion.” 4. In the light of the reasons specified supra, inasmuch as convincing reasons had been recorded, it is not a fit matter to be interfered with. 5. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. ___________________ P.S. NARAYANA, J March 02, 2010 MD