IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1378 OF 2010 Between: Mohammed Karimullah … PETITIONER And 1. Ravi Nageshwara Rao 2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by Public Prosecutor … RESPONDENTS This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1378 OF 2010 ORDER: 1. This revision petition is sought to be filed by the accused against order dated 14.07.2010, passed by the Additional Judicial Magistrate of the I Class, Sathupally, in Crl.MP.No.676 of 2010 in C.C.No.690 of 2009 by which the lower court dismissed the petition filed by the accused under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act refusing to send Ex.P4-cheque to an expert for comparison and opinion on signature and hand writing contained therein. The first respondent filed private complaint in the lower court alleging that the cheque drawn by the accused in his favour for Rs.2,40,000/- was dishonoured by the banker for want of sufficient funds and that the said cheque was issued by the accused towards discharge of legally enforceable debt. After completion of the complainant’s evidence, examination of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the defence evidence, the accused came up with the present petition in the lower court. 2. It is pertinent to note that the banker dishonoured the cheque for want of sufficient funds and not on the ground of signature not tallying. Therefore, on the part of the banker, there is no doubt or dispute that Ex.P4-cheque was containing signature of the accused only. Examination of the cheque by an expert is not the only method provided for the scrutiny of signature contained therein. Apart from the banker scrutinizing signature of the drawer and not disputing the same, there is provision under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act to compare the disputed signature with admitted signatures contained in the record by the court itself. Now-a-days, during training period in this state, every Magistrate is provided with training for comparison of hand writings and signatures. Apart from the said formal training, the Presiding Officers of the subordinate court in their day-to-day work will be coming across several such disputed signatures and the courts are expected to take decisions on such disputed signatures taking aid of Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act. Thus, the subordinate courts are now equipped with formal training as well as experience in comparison of disputed signatures and disputed hand writings. No doubt, as answered by the Division Bench of this court in Janachaitanya Housing Ltd vs. Divya Financiers[1], there is no time limit fixed for filing applications under Section 45 of the Evidence Act. 3. The petitioner’s counsel placed reliance on Velaga Sivarama Krishna vs. Velaga Veerabhadra Rao[2] a n d P. Venkatramana vs. M. Venkataramana[3]. The above two decisions were rendered while considering civil disputes between the parties. Whereas in the case of hand, the dispute is one for punishing the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In the matter of this nature, there is already opinion of the banker to the effect that the signature on the cheque was tallying with specimen signatures with the banker. That apart, the court has got power to compare disputed signatures with those undisputable signatures contained in the record under Section 73 of the Evidence Act. In these circumstances, the lower court rightly negatived belated petition of the accused to send the cheque for comparison of signatures and hand writing. I do not find any error in the order passed by the lower court. 4. Hence, the Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. ______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J August 02, 2010 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1378 OF 2010 August 02, 2010 [1] 2008 (3) ALT 409 [2] 2009 (1) ALT 379 [3] 2009 (5) ALT 113