THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.440 OF 2009 ORDER: 1 This is a petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. questioning the order dated 24.11.2008 made in Crl.M.P.No.4193 of 2008 in C.C.No.913 of 2004 on the file of the court of the VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad whereby the learned Magistrate dismissed the application filed under section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to send the documents marked as Exs.P.1 to P.7 to Forensic Science Laboratory along with standard signature of the petitioner for comparison and report. 2. Brief facts are that Second respondent herein filed a private compliant against the petitioner herein for the alleged offence punishable under section 138 of the N.I.Act, which was taken on file by the learned Magistrate as C.C.No.913 of 2004. The respondent was examined as P.W.1 and he also got marked Exs.P.1 to P.7. The petitioner who is accused in the said case, suspecting that the signatures on the said documents were forged, filed the present application i.e. Crl.M.P.No.4193 of 2008 requesting the court to send those documents to the Forensic Science Laboratory along with standard signature of the petitioner for comparison and report. As stated supra, the learned Magistrate dismissed the said application. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached the Court of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad and filed Crl.R.P.No.211 of 2008 and the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge vide order dated 16.12.2008 dismissed the said revision concurring with the finding of the trial court that the petitioner had filed the present application with an intention to drag on the criminal case which is of the year 2004. 3 Heard both sides. 4 Apparently, trial was over and the matter was coming up for examination of the accused / petitioner under section 313 Cr.P.C. and at that point of time, the present application has been filed. In my considered view, the trial court as well as the revisional court are justified in holding that the said application is belated one and the said documents are not required to be sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for comparison. Further, it is an old case of the year 2004 taken on file for the alleged offence punishable under section 138 of the N.I. Act. Hence this court is not inclined to interfere with the said findings of the courts below and accordingly this petition is dismissed as devoid of any merit. -------------------- 06.07.2010 Kvsn