THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.2848 OF 2008 Dated : 09.03.2010 Between : P.Uma Sankar … Petitioner-accused A n d 1) S.Padmanaba Rao 2) The State of A.P. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.2848 OF 2008 ORDER : This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter called as ‘Code’ for convenience) praying for quashing of the order made in Crl.R.P.No.3 of 2008 on the file of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada. 2) The petitioner-accused filed an application in Crl.M.P.No.2949 of 2007 in C.C.No.1098 of 2005 on the file of the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, under Section 91 read with Section 311 of the Code. The learned III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, dismissed the said application. Being aggrieved by the same, Crl.R.P.No.3 of 2008 was filed before the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada. 3) The learned Sessions Judge formulated the following point for consideration at para No.4 of the impugned order : “Whether there are any grounds to interfere with the orders passed in Crl.M.P.No.2949 of 2007 in C.C.No.1098 of 2005 dated 07.01.2008 on the file of the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayayawada?” 4) The learned Judge further recorded reasons at para Nos.5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 and came to the conclusion that the criminal revision petition is devoid of merits and accordingly dismissed the same. Aggrieved by the said order, the present criminal petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code as aforesaid. 5) Sri K.S.Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner, had taken this Court through several grounds, which had been specifically raised in the present Criminal Petition and also explained the scope and ambit of Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act and further strongly relied on Damera Venkata Murali Krishna Rao v. Ch.Prasada Rao[1] and Korvi Rosaiah v. Mitta Srinivasa Reddy[2]. 6) The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also would maintain that in the light of the convincing reasons recorded by both the Courts, it is not a fit case to be interfered. 7) Sri V.V. Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the first respondent, had specifically pointed out to the reasons, which had been recorded by the Revision Court, and would maintain that in the light of the convincing reasons, it is not a fit matter to be interfered. 8) Heard the learned counsel on record. 9) Perused the records. 10) Learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, after considering the arguments advanced, recorded elaborate reasons and ultimately confirmed the order of the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. In fact, the learned Sessions Judge at para No.10 of the impugned observed as hereunder: “On careful consideration of the entire material on hand, the present case in which the revision petitioner and complainant/respondent are connected is for the offence under sec.138 of N.I.Act. At one time the petitioner under sec.45 of Evidence Act was allowed by the lower court. The hand writing expert expressed that the documents submitted to him are not sufficient. The revision petitioner is not supposed to come up with such an application under sec.91 Cr.P.C. once again to direct the 3rd parties to produce the original documents in their power. It is specifically seen that those documents are connected to the complainant. It appears to me that the observation of the lower court that the petitioner is prolonging the matter on the ground that the expert has returned the documents holding that those are not sufficient for the purpose of comparison. The said opinion of the expert is only to the extent that the documents were not sufficient. In the circumstance of the present case on hand, it is not just and reasonable to summon the documents which are in the power of the 3rd parties that too a person who is in Singapore and the Urban Land Ceiling Authority. 11) The learned Sessions Judge also referred to certain decisions and ultimately came to the conclusion that the Criminal Revision Petition is devoid of merits and accordingly dismissed the revision petition confirming the order made in Crl.M.P.No.2949 of 2009 as aforesaid. 12) On careful appreciation of all the facts and circumstances, this Court is thoroughly satisfied that there is no illegality or legal infirmity warranting interference with the orders made by the Courts below. 13) Accordingly, the Criminal Petition shall stand dismissed. ___________________ P.S. NARAYANA, J 9th March, 2010 SUR [1] 2006 (5) ALT 457 [2] 2006 (3) ALT 605