THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1580 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: The petitioner is facing trial in C.C.No.88 of 2008 on the file of the XV Additional Judge-cum-XIX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. During the course of trial, he filed an application under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act seeking to send Ex.D-1, which is a letter alleged to have been written by the complainant, to Handwriting Expert along with other documents produced by the complainant for comparison of the signatures and to ascertain the age of the ink. The same was numbered as Crl.M.P.No.4540 of 2010. After considering the arguments on either side, the learned Magistrate by his order, dated 17.08.2010 dismissed the said application. The same is under challenge in this Revision. Despite the fact that respondent No.1 is served with notice, he is neither present in person nor chosen to put in his appearance through an advocate. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the relevant material available on record. It is mainly contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that Ex.D-1 is a letter addressed by the complainant by name Chakravarthy and during course of his examination, the same was marked as Ex.D-1; and that, as certain documents containing his signatures were filed by the complainant, it is very much necessary for the Court to decide as to whether the said documents are genuine or not. In that context, according to him, the signatures of the complainant are required to be compared with that of his signature on Ex.D- 1-a letter said to have been written to the accused by the complainant himself. Learned counsel has also drawn my attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in T.Nagappa V. Y.R.Muralidhar[1], wherein para No.7 reads as under: - “Section 243 – Evidence for defence. (1) (2) If the accused, after he had entered upon his defence, applies to the Magistrate to issue any process for compelling the attendance of any witness for the purpose of examination or cross-examination, or the production of any document or other thing, the Magistrate shall issue such process unless he considers that such application should be refused on the ground that it is made for the purpose of vexation or delay or for defeating the ends of justice and such ground shall be recorded by him in writing: provided that, when the accused has cross-examined or had the opportunity of cross-examining any witness before entering on his defence, the attendance of such witness shall not be compelled under this Section, unless the Magistrate is satisfied that it is necessary for the ends of justice.” As the respondent herein has not put in his appearance and as the facts of the aforesaid case are identical to the case on hand, this Court is of the view that the petitioner shall be given an opportunity to send the said document- Ex.D-1 to an Handwriting Expert. Accordingly, Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The Court below is directed to send Ex.D- 1 to Hand-writing Expert for comparison of the signature of the complainant on it with that of the signatures in the other documents filed by the complainant. __________________________________ JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA 26th October 2010 dr [1] 2008 (TLS) 46136