IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1707 of 2009 BETWEEN: Sri Prathavi Ramakrishna Goud, S/o. Prathavi Kistaiah, aged 47 years, Occ: Business, R/o.7-1-72/1, Plot NO.10, Dharam Karam Road, Ameerpet, Hyderabad …Petitioner/Accused AND Sri K.V.Subba Rao, S/o.Late Suryanarayana, Aged 64 years, Occ:Business, R/o.8-3-224/8, A20, G-70, Madhuranagar, Hyderabad – 500 038, A.P. And another. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1707 of 2009 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 read with Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code against the order dated 23.09.2009 passed in Criminal M.P.No.3011 of 2009 in C.C.No.442 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the XVI Additional Judge-cum-XX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad. After hearing the arguments in Crl.R.C.M.P.No.2556 of 2009 in Crl.R.C.M.P.No.2359 of 2009, I feel it just and reasonable to dispose of the main revision itself. The controversy is whether to send Ex.P.7 – Deed of Simple Mortgage (Extension / Second charge) dated 20.07.2007, to the handwriting expert for comparision and his opinion along with the specimen signatures and thump impressions of the petitioner/accused. The petitioner herein, filed a petition under Section 293 of Criminal Procedure Code read with Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act praying the trial Court to send Ex.P.7 – Deed of Simple Mortgage (Extension / Second charge) dated 20.07.2007, to the handwriting expert. The trial Court observed that the petitioner has not taken any plea denying the transaction and the case is coming up for cross-examination of PW.1 and unless the same is done, it cannot be decided as to whether any useful purpose would be served, if the document is sent to the handwriting expert and whether the opinion of the expert would be helpful to the Court to arrive at a just conclusion or not. In a case between Pulaparti Sakuntala Bai v Mygapula Ramanjaneyulu[1], this Court held that an application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 must be filed before the evidence of such party is closed. Here, in this case, the application filed is by the accused and not by the complainant. The only point that was discussed by the trial Court is that, the case is coming up for cross- examination of P.W.1 and unless cross-examination of P.W.1 is over, it cannot be decided as to whether any useful purpose would be served by sending the document to handwriting expert and whether his opinion would be helpful to the Court to arrive at a just conclusion or not. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the lower Court. However, suffice to say that, after the cross-examination of PW.1 is over, the petitioner may file a petition to send Ex.P.7 to the handwriting expert and on such petition, the lower Court may pass appropriate orders without any delay. Subject to the above observation, the Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of. ________________________ (JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR) November 04, 2009 BVV [1] 2006 (3) ALD 146