HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.7684 of 2009 Dated : 22.09.2009 Between : Modili Srinivasa Rao ….. Petitioner a n d 1) I.Kamala 2) The State of A.P. ….. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.7684 of 2009 ORDER: Heard Sri S.Appadhara Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri A.Ramesh, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor, for the second respondent. No notice is being ordered to the first respondent as the matter is being disposed of at the stage of admission. The document, in question, which is a cheque, was earlier sent to the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents, Directorate of Forensic Science, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad, for examination of ink in the writings and signatures on the cheque and the Government Examiner has given an opinion after examining the cheque with various scientific equipments using non destructive methods stating that it has not been possible to differentiate between the inks of the signature and the body writing and to determine either the relative or absolute age of the ink of the signature vis-à-vis the body writings. The Government Examiner had in fact enclosed two print outs of the cheque in Video Spectral Comparator-5000 under different light conditions along with the report. The petitioner, therefore, came up again with another petition in Crl.M.P.No.1043 of 2009 in C.C.No.19 of 2007, which was dismissed by the impugned order dated 24.08.2009 by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram. The petitioner seeks to make a reference to the report of the private hand writing expert rendered in connection with some other document in a money suit between the parties, but the same cannot be considered as a relevant circumstance in appreciating the request of the petitioner for sending the disputed cheque herein for better opinion to another expert. The trial Court had in fact appreciated the rival contentions of the parties and observed that the request is not being rejected on the ground of mentioning any wrong provision of law, but as the process of getting a report from the expert was already considered earlier and even after that report, sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner to produce his defence evidence since 13.03.2009. The Court also noted that P.W.1 was in fact recalled for further cross examination as requested by the petitioner and was permitted to be cross-examined. The trial Court further noted that the belated request of the petitioner for sending the document to another expert is only an expression of delaying tactics and thereby dismissed the petition. The present criminal petition is again with a request to consider for sending the document to another expert for the same purpose on the ground that in O.S.No.178 of 2007, the promissory note was found by a private hand writing expert to be a forged one, but the same cannot be a relevant consideration as already stated and the impugned order passed by the trial Court, which is passed on adequate and acceptable reasons, is not susceptible to interfere in exercise of inherent jurisdiction of this Court, which is available only in rarest of rare cases. Therefore, the criminal petition should fail. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear that any observations made in this order shall not influence the determination of C.C.No.19 of 2007 in accordance with law by the trial Court. ______________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J 22nd September, 2009 SUR