THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA Criminal Petition No.1817 of 2010 Date : 25-3-2010 Between : Mohammed Moinuddin and another .. Petitioners and The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by Public Prosecutor High Court of A.P. Hyderabad and another .. Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA Criminal Petition No.1817 of 2010 ORDER: Heard the Counsel for petitioner, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing 1st respondent and the Counsel representing the 2nd respondent. The learned Judge recorded reasons at para-6 as hereunder:- “The perusal of record shows that respondent/complainant filed the case against the accused for the offence U/s.138 of N.I. Act. When the matter is posted for judgment on 12-1- 2010 the present petition and other petition for reopen were filed. The record further shows that as it is contended by the Counsel for the respondent the petitioner herein had filed a petition U/s.45 Evidence Act for comparison of signature of the complainant with disputed signature on Ex.D1 and D.2 and the same was allowed and this Court has received the report from the expert. Now the present petition is filed to examine the scientific officer who has given the said opinion. The petition as filed by the petitioner is vague. There is no specific reason mentioned for examination and cross examination of the scientific officer who had given the report. What made the petitioner in filing this petition to cross examine the scientific officer is not stated. There is no averment in the petition that the procedure followed by the scientific officer and the opinion he arrived at after following the said procedure is not correct. On what ground the petitioner is challenging the report given by the scientific officer is not clear. In the petition it is stated it is just and necessary to examine the scientific officer to ascertain the case of the petitioner. That means the petitioner once again wants to ascertain from the scientific officer that the disputed documents bear the signature of the complainant. As already a report is send by the officer there is no need to speak about the report unless the petitioner challenges the procedure followed by him. The averments in the petition itself shows that the present petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable. It is the case of the petitioner that the complainant had deliberately put his signatures on the receipts in a different style. If that is the case, the opinion given by the expert supports the contention of the petitioner only. On the other hand report is nothing but an opinion and it is not a conclusive proof of the case. As such there are no merits in the petition…” In the light of the reasons which had been recorded by the learned Judge, this Court is of the opinion that this is not a fit matter to be interfered under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. ____________________ Justice P.S.Narayana Date : 25-3-2010 AM