THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.648 OF 2011 DATED:25.07.2011 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order, dated 14.02.2011, in Crl.M.P.No.15 of 2011 in Crl.A.No.22 of 2010 on the file of the learned IX Additional District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein under Section 293 r/w 391 Cr.P.C., was dismissed. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the records. 3. Petitioner herein is facing prosecution for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in C.C.No.621 of 2008 before the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Visakhapatnam and after full fledged trial, she was found guilty for the said offence and was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and also to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner filed Crl.A.No.22 of 2010. During the pendency of the appeal, petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.15 of 2011 seeking a direction to send the subject-cheque to the handwriting expert for the purpose of comparing the writing on the cheque with the admitted writing and also to assess the age of the ink with which the contents are written. 4. According to the petitioner, complainant was a total stranger and that she issued the cheque to one Kamalavathi and the same was pressed into service by the complainant. Petitioner-accused has not disputed her signature on the cheque. The contents of the cheque can be written in different ink from the one used for subscribing the signature. The question of sending the cheque for the purpose of assessing the difference in the ink or the age of the ink used for writing the contents and the signature does not arise as the time lag from the date on which the blank cheque is said to have been issued and the date on which the contents are filled is not much. Further the petitioner has not taken any steps during the pendency of the trial to send the disputed cheque to the hand writing expert for the purpose of comparison and opinion. The case ended in conviction after a full fledged trial during which ample opportunity was available to the petitioner to take all necessary steps in support of her defence but she has not availed any such opportunity. It is obvious that the present application is filed during the pendency of the appeal to some how get over adverse impact of the judgment of the trial Court. 5. In the circumstances, as the signature on the cheque is not disputed, it is considered that there is neither any reason nor occasion to send the disputed cheque and the promissory note to the hand writing expert, at this stage, during the pendency of the appeal. The learned appellate Court shall dispose of the appeal on its own merits, without in any way being influenced by the observations made hereinabove. 6. In the result, Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 25th July, 2011. Tsy