THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1162 OF 2009 20TH AUGUST 2009 BETWEEN: RAYIPUDI VENKATESWARLU .. PETITIONER V. STATE OF A.P. .. RESPONDENTS THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1162 OF 2009 O R D E R: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order dated 12-6-2009 passed in Crl.M.P.No.454 of 2009 in C.C.No.228 of 2008 on the file of Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet, Guntur District, whereby and where under the learned Judge dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act. 2. The petitioner is accused in C.C.No.4 of 1998. The said C.C. ended in acquittal of the accused. The defacto complainant filed Crl.R.C.No.699 of 2002 assailing the acquittal of the accused for the offence under section 138 of N.I.Act. The said revision came to be allowed setting aside the acquittal and remanding the matter back to the trial court for fresh disposal by an order dated 29.2.2008. The relevant portion of the order reads as under: “ The only question that arises for consideration in this revision is as to whether there was valid notice issued to the accused within the specified time? Section 94 of the N.I.Act provides the mode of issuing a notice. It says that notice can be oral or written, if written, be sent by post and may be in any form. Thus, under Section 94 of the N.I.Act, notice can be oral or written, as the oral notice is difficult to prove naturally and when the notice is in writing, it shall be sent by post, and needs to be sent only through registered post for proof of sending the same. That being a case, in case it is holiday, there is no possibility of sending the same by registered post. As per the General Clauses Act, the notice could have been sent on the next working day in case the last date was Sunday, as such, it cannot be said that there was delay in sending the notice. Considering the facts and circumstances, the impugned judgment is set aside, and the matter is remanded to the trial court for fresh disposal. There need not be any recording of further evidence. Only on the basis of the material, a fresh judgment should be pronounced treating that the notice was sent in time. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed.” After remand, the case came to be renumbered as C.C.No.228 of 2008. The accused filed Crl.M.P.No.454 of 2009 u/s 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to send D1-receipt to handwriting expert for opinion. The respondent/complainant filed counter resisting the application. The learned Judge, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing learned counsel appearing for the parties, proceeded to dismiss the application by an order dated 12-6-2009. Hence, this revision by the accused. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the order impugned in this revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner seriously disputed Ex.D1 and therefore an application has been filed under section 45 of Indian Evidence Act to send Ex.D1 to handwriting expert for opinion and the opinion of the hand writing expert is essential to resolve the dispute between the parties. 5. As seen from the order passed in Crl.R.C.No.699 of 2002, the trial Court has to hear the parties afresh and decide the matter. Neither party is permitted to adduce any evidence. Such is the observation in the revision, the application filed by the petitioner u/s 45 of the Indian Evidence Act cannot be entertained. The trial court considered the matter in right perspective and rightly dismissed Crl.M.P.No.454 of 2009. I do not see any flaw in the order impugned in this revision. 6. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. 20th August, 2009. ( B.Seshasayana Reddy,J ) tnb THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1162 OF 2009 20TH AUGUST 2009.