HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRL.P.NO. 2589 OF 2007 DATED: 16.07.2010 BETWEEN: Kuraguntla Miriam .. Petitioner And The State of A.P. and another .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRL.P.NO. 2589 OF 2007 ORDER: This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the order dated 13.04.2007 in C.F.R.No.6181 of 2007 in C.C.No.359 of 2005 on the file of the V Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State-respondent No.1 and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2. The brief facts necessary for considering the criminal petition may be stated as follows: The petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.359 of 2005 on the file of the V Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntu. The second respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the cognizance of the case was taken by the learned Magistrate and it was numbered as C.C.No.359 of 2005. During the course of the trial, the petitioner who was examined as defence witness on her behalf contended that the signatures on Ex.P.1 and on the reverse of Ex.P.2 were forged by the second respondent and she also filed a petition under section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, in Criminal Petition No.790 of 2006 to send the admitted and disputed signatures to the handwriting expert for comparison and opinion. The said petition was dismissed by the learned Magistrate and as against the said order, the petitioner filed Criminal Revision Petition No.37 of 2006 and the same was allowed by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur. Thereafter, as per the orders in Crl.R.P.No.37 of 2007, the learned Magistrate forwarded the documents Ex.P.1 and P.2 along with the documents containing the admitted signatures of the petitioner to the handwriting expert. However, the handwriting expert after examining the documents sent a requisition to the learned Magistrate stating that for the purpose of giving opinion some more documents containing the admitted signatures of the petitioner are required and on that on 30.03.2007 the learned Magistrate issued summons to the Principal JMJ College where the petitioner was working and the officials of the petitioner’s college were present on 09.04.2007 pursuant to the summons issued by the learned Magistrate and they also submitted the documents containing the admitted signatures before the Magistrate. But the learned Magistrate adjourned the matter to 13.04.2007 and from that day posted the matter for arguments of the defence counsel without forwarding the documents to the handwriting expert. Therefore, the petitioner filed the present criminal petition seeking to quash the order dated 13.04.2007 in C.F.R.No.6181 of 2007 in C.C.No.359 of 2005, whereunder the learned Magistrate declined to send the documents to the handwriting expert. The crucial aspect which requires to be considered in this matter is that apparently the learned Magistrate issued summons to the Principal JMJ College following the order passed by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur in Crl.R.P.No.37 of 2006. In fact the said order is binding on the Magistrate. After summoning the officials of the said college and receiving the documents, the learned Magistrate passed the impugned order on 13.04.2007 which is as under: “Complainant and the accused present. The docket goes that the accused is dragging the matter unnecessarily. The documents were returned by the F.S.L. Petitioner though sufficient time given to get ready to comply with the directions of the Court, not complied until the documents returned. However, the Court is having ample power to compare the disputed signature with the admitted signature under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act. Hence, I feel that sending again the signatures to the expert for opinion cause prejudice to complainant. Hence, I feel that it is not necessary to again send the signatures to the expert for opinion. Hence, the documents not necessary to be sent to expert for opinion. Moreover, it is a matter pertaining to the year 2005. So further evidence on the defence side closed, as the docket goes it was coming for defence side evidence since 20.12.2005.. Heard arguments on the complainant side. To hear arguments on the defence side call on 17.4.2007.” In my considered view, the learned Magistrate is not correct in stating that she is empowered under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act to compare the signatures, and therefore, the signatures need not be sent to the expert. The same view expressed by the learned Magistrate in her order in the petition filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act by the petitioner, was rejected by the III Additional Sessions Judge in revision. Therefore, the learned Magistrate is not supposed to proceed with the trial of the case without following the order passed in the Criminal revision petition. The order impugned passed by the learned Magistrate is ex facie illegal. Accordingly, order dated 13.04.2007 in C.F.R.No.6181 of 2007 in C.C.No.359 of 2005 on the file of the V Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur is quashed. The criminal petition is allowed. ___________________ R.KANTHA RAO,J Dated:16.07.2010 kvrm HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRL.P.NO. 2589 OF 2007 DATED: 16.07.2010