THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Petition No.6891 of 2008 14th December, 2011 Between :- K.Praveena .. Petitioner And B.Maheedar Reddy & another .. Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Petition No.6891 of 2008 ORDER:- This Criminal Petition has been taken out under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the accused in C.C.No.607 of 2003 on the file of the VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, to quash the Judgment dated 22-9-2008 made in Crl.R.P.No.153 of 2008 on the file of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. The petitioner is the accused and whereas the 1st respondent is the complainant in C.C.No.607 of 2003. The 1st respondent filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner herein in the Court of the XVI-Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad (redesignated as VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad) alleging, inter alia, that the petitioner herein issued two cheques – cheque bearing No.6467506 dated 15-4-2003 for an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- and cheque bearing No.6467507 dated 15-5- 2003 for an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- towards discharge of the legally enforceable debt. On presentation, these cheques came to be dishonoured. Thereupon a statutory notice dated 14-7-2003 came to be issued calling upon the petitioner herein to make good the payment of the amounts covered under the cheques. Since no payment is made, complaint has been instituted to take cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned Magistrate took the complaint on file as C.C.No.607 of 2003. The petitioner/accused entered appearance and denied the accusations levelled against her. Thereafter she moved Crl.M.P.No.2140 of 2008 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to send Exs.P.1 and P.2 – Cheques for comparison of her writings thereon to Handwriting Expert. The learned Magistrate by order dated 2-9-2008 allowed the petition. Paras 16 and 17 of the Order passed in Crl.M.P.No.2140 of 2008 read as hereunder:- “It is true as rightly submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent/complainant, there is abnormal delay in filing this present petition. The main case is of 2003 and the present petition is filed in the year 2008 and so, I opine the respondent/complainant must be compensated properly for the inconvenience caused to him. The point is accordingly answered. In the result, the petition is allowed on cost of Rs.500/- which shall be paid by the petitioner to the respondent/complainant by 5-9-2008. The petitioner is hereby directed to file documents of 2003 if any containing her signatures by next adjournment day and she shall appear before the Court for taking her signatures in Open Court to take further steps in this matter. The petitioner shall also deposit an amount of Rs.2,000/- tentatively towards fees of Handwriting expert. Call on 5-9-2008.” The respondent/complainant filed Crl.R.P.No.153 of 2008 on the file of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, assailing the order dated 2-9-2008 passed by the VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in Crl.M.P.No.2140 of 2008. The Revisional Court by order dated 22-9-2008 reserved the liberty to the petitioner/accused to obtain opinion of an Expert of her choice without moving original cheques – Exs.P.1 and P.2 from Court and to get opinion of the Expert by adopting the procedure noted in the order. The relevant portion of the order passed in Crl.R.P.No.153 of 2008 reads as hereunder:- “The lower Court placed reliance on T.Nagappa Vs. Y.R.Muralidhar (2008 (1) ALD (Crl.) 927) of the Supreme Court. In that decision the question was with regard to age of signature in the cheque. In the case on hand also, ink of the signatures differ from ink of other writings in the cheques. Therefore, there is nothing wrong and illegal in obtaining opinion of an expert in this regard. But, the crucial documents namely Exs.P.1 and P.2 cannot be allowed to be sent out of custody of the Court. It is for the accused to obtain opinion of the expert by keeping the original documents in Court and permitting the expert to look into the documents and obtain photographs or Xerox copies of the documents in Court. Of course, it is well settled law that evidence of an expert is not conclusive and that it would be only a piece of evidence which has to be considered by the Court along with other oral and documentary evidence on record. In the result, the accused is at liberty to obtain of an expert of her choice without moving original cheques Exs.P.1 and P.2 from Court and to get opinion of the expert by adopting the procedure noted in this order. The revision petition is ordered accordingly.” Hence, this Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the prayer stated supra. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent – Complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the 2nd respondent – State. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused submits that the petitioner/accused sought for sending the documents to the Forensic Science Laboratory and therefore the order passed by the Revisional Court is required to be modified to that extent. Learned Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent – Complainant submits that Exs.P.1 and P.2 are required to be sent to handwriting expert for comparison along with the contemporaneous documents of the petitioner/accused available with the Canara Bank, Dilsukhnagar Branch. As could be seen from the material brought on record, the specimen signatures have already been obtained by the Trial Court. The Revisional Court has opined that the Photostat copies of Exs.P.1 and P.2 are required to be sent to an expert of the choice of the petitioner herein. The choice of the petitioner to choose an expert includes the Forensic Science Laboratory. With the above clarification, this Criminal Petition is disposed of. _________________________ B.Seshasayana Reddy, J 14th December, 2011 smr