HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2976 OF 2010 Date: 08.04.2010 Between: Rampalli Satya Venkateswararao ……Petitioner And: The State of A.P., SHO., rep. by its PP ……Respondent. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2976 OF 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is accused of offences punishable under Sections 468, 471, 409 and 420 IPC in C.C.No.919 of 2009 on the file of First Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. He seeks quashing of proceedings in that criminal case. The petitioner/accused worked as Assistant Section Officer in A.P.S.I.D.C., at Vijayawada. The matter pertains to forgery of three cheques and withdrawing total sum of Rs.2,56,900/- with the help of those three cheques from A.P.S.I.D.C., funds. It is alleged that as Assistant Section Officer, the accused was in-charge of all office and bank transactions and that when the misappropriation was detected on verification of the records, Executive Engineer of A.P.S.I.D.C., issued charge memo to the accused and that the accused admitted his guilt and credited total misappropriated amount of Rs.2,56,900/- to the company on 07.05.2007. As per prosecution case, the cheques purport to contain signatures of B. Mohana Rao, Assistant Manager and M.V.S.K. Ranga Rao, Executive Engineer. The Assistant Director in Forensic Science Laboratory examined the disputed cheques with admitted writings and signatures of the two alleged signatories and opined that those cheques do not contain signatures of the two officers whose signatures were purported to have been made thereon. No doubt, the expert further opined that authorship of forgery on the disputed documents could not be deciphered because there is no sufficient material available. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that there is no proof much less beyond all reasonable doubt to show that the accused forged signatures in those three cheques particularly in view of expert’s opinion. This Court in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., cannot go into question of fact and cannot be called upon to appreciate evidence collected by the investigating officer. Apart from the expert’s report, as per the prosecution case, there is other material also which is pointed out above. It is for the trial court to appreciate total evidence on record including opinion of the expert and to come to conclusion of its own with regard to truth or otherwise of the prosecution case. At this stage, I see no merits in this petition. Hence, the petition is dismissed. ___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J Date:08.04.2010. Gk. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2976 OF 2010 Date: 08.04.2010 Gk.