THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1208 OF 2011 DATED:30.06.2011 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order, dated 23.03.2011, in Crl.P.Nos.302 & 303 of 2010 in S.C.No.127 of 2007 on the file of the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Machilipatnam, Krishna District, wherein the said applications filed by the petitioner-A1 under Section 91 Cr.P.C., seeking to summon P.W.2 with a direction to produce the bill book before the Court and also to send the same along with the disputed signature on Ex.D1 to the hand writing expert for comparison and opinion, were dismissed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent. Perused the records. 3. Petitioner along with others is accused of the offence under Section 302 IPC. The trial of the case is in progress. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.W.2, who claimed to be the eye witness to the occurrence. P.W.2 is stated to be running a shop dealing with paints etc. The accused examined D.W.3 as a defence witness to show that at the time of the alleged occurrence P.W.2 was in fact at his shop near the scene of offence and that D.W.3 purchased some paints etc., from P.W.2 under the receipt-Ex.D1. It is stated that when confronted with Ex.D.1, P.W.2 denied the signature thereon. Accused therefore filed the applications before the trial Court seeking a direction to P.W.2 to produce the bill book pertaining to the transaction under Ex.D1 so that both can be sent to the hand writing expert for comparison and opinion. The prosecution has reported before the trial Court that the bill book related to the year, 2005 and therefore the same is not available now when the said bill book is stated to be not available the question of producing the same does not arise. It is open to the accused to plead before the trial Court to draw adverse inference, if any, available under law because of non- production of the bill book. As the bill book, which is stated to be containing the admitted signatures, is stated to be not available, the question of producing the same as an admitted document and sending the same along with Ex.D1 to the hand writing expert does not arise. Even otherwise, as rightly pointed out by the trial Court, the shop and the scene of offence are in the same locality and the time of purchase is not mentioned in Ex.D1. It is for the trial Court to appreciate the probative value of Ex.D1 and its impact on the prosecution case along with the other evidence available on record. The impugned order, dismissing the applications, does not call for any interference. 4. In the result, Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 30th June, 2011. Tsy