IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.272 OF 2010 BETWEEN: V. Kumara Swamy S/o. Chieranjeeva Rao …. Petitioner AND G.Prabhakarreddy S/o. Late Pitchi Reddy and another. …. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.272 OF 2010 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner – accused against the order dated 11-01-2010 in Crl. M.P. No.3247 of 2009, a petition under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, in C.C. No.95 of 2009 passed by the learned V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore. 2. Heard. 3. The petitioner admitted his signature on the cheque in question; but he disputes the signature on the promissory note - Ex.P- 8, which he wanted to send to the expert for opinion. The impugned order shows that the present petitioner examined DW-1, who is the attestor of Ex.P-8. 4. Now, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that DW-1 turned hostile, but when she was examined as a witness as to who is the attestor, she spoke in favour of the document – Ex.P-8. 5. There is no need of sending the document for expert’s opinion, particularly in this case, where admitted signature of the petitioner on the disputed cheque itself is available. Under those circumstances, the Court can compare the admitted signature of the petitioner on the disputed cheque with his signature on Ex.P-8 - promissory note and arrive at a conclusion. Thus, there is no necessity of sending the promissory note for the opinion of the handwriting expert. 7. I see no merit in the revision and the same is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage itself. _____________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J March 11, 2010. KTL