IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Crl.P.No.5826 of 2007 Between:- K.V.N.Poornachandra Rao …Petitioners A n d The State of A.P. Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another. …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.P.No.5826 of 2007 ORDER: This criminal petition is directed against the order dated 16-08-2007 in Crl.M.P.No.3227 of 2007 in C.C.No.413 of 2005, on the file of the II- Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, wherein the said application filed by the second respondent herein, the accused, was allowed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the second respondent. Perused the records. 3. The petitioner filed a complaint against the second respondent alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial in the case was completed and the matter stood posted for judgment on 27-04-2007. At that stage, the second respondent/accused filed an application Crl.M.P.No.1741 of 2007 under Section 45 of the Evidence Act seeking to send the disputed signatures on Exs.P-1 to P-6 to handwriting expert. The said petition was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the accused filed Crl.P.No.3590 of 2007. This Court by order dated 18-06-2007 dismissed the said petition observing that the deposition of P.W.1 would go to show that there was no suggestion put to P.W.1 that the signatures in Exs.P-1 to P-6 do not belong to the accused and that when there is no such suggestion, question of sending the documents to handwriting expert does not arise at that stage. Subsequently, when the matter was again coming up for judgment, the accused filed Crl.M.P.No.3227 of 2007 for recall of P.W.1 for further cross-examination. The petitioner-complainant filed a detailed counter opposing the application contending that the said petition was filed only to delay and drag on the proceedings at the judgment stage subsequent to dismissal of the criminal petition. The said petition was allowed by the learned Magistrate by a one line order without any reasons in support thereof. Such an order would clearly indicate non-application of judicial mind to the various aspects raised by the complainant in his counter. The impugned order is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside on that ground alone. Even otherwise, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant, the petition in Crl.M.P.No.3227 of 2007 was filed by the accused to recall P.W.1 for further cross-examination, obviously to get over the orders passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.3590 of 2007. As no suggestion was put to P.W.1 in the cross-examination to the effect that the signatures in Exs.P-1 to P-6 do not belong to the accused, it was held by this Court that that the question of sending the said documents to the handwriting expert, that too at the stage of judgment does not arise. The accused, therefore, now seeks to recall P.W.1 for putting the said suggestion and perhaps to renew his request to send the documents to handwriting expert. Such a course is impermissible as it amounts to subversion of the orders passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.3590 of 2007. The application filed by the accused in Crl.M.P.No.3227 of 2007 seeking recall of P.W.1, when the matter stood at the stage of judgment, is nothing but abuse of process of the Court. The impugned order allowing the said application, that too without furnishing any reasons whatsoever, is wholly unsustainable and is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. 4. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed. Interim order of stay granted on 06-10-2007 stands vacated. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 08th July, 2010. Lrkm.