under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, to send the cheque dated 16.10.2008 to the hand writing expert to compare the signatures appearing thereon with the admitted signatures of him.-The hand writing expert sought for some more admitted signatures of the contemporaneous period. The petitioner failed to furnish the admitted signatures of the contemporaneous period and thereupon, the learned Magistrate closed the petition by order dated 02.01.2013.- Having considered the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that some time can be allowed to the petitioner-accused to furnish the admitted signatures of contemporaneous period.

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.50 of 2013

ORDER:

        This revision is directed against the order dated 02.01.2013 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1431 of 2010 in C.C.No.109 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Eluru (Mobile Court). 

The petitioner is the accused.  First respondent is the complainant.  The petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.1431 of 2010 in C.C.No.109 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Eluru (Mobile Court) under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, to send the cheque dated 16.10.2008 to the hand writing expert to compare the signatures appearing thereon with the admitted signatures of him.

Learned Judicial First Class Magistrate allowed the application and directed the petitioner-accused to deposit the required fees and furnish the contemporaneous documents.  The cheque in question and the admitted signatures have been sent to hand writing expert.  The hand writing expert sought for some more admitted signatures of the contemporaneous period.  The petitioner failed to furnish the admitted signatures of the contemporaneous period and thereupon, the learned Magistrate closed the petition by order dated 02.01.2013.

Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused and learned Counsel appearing for the first respondent-complainant.

Learned Counsel appearing for the first respondent-complainant submits that the first respondent-complainant has no objection if the petitioner-accused furnishes the admitted signatures of contemporaneous period within a stipulated time, so that the admitted signatures could be sent to the hand writing expert for comparison with the signatures of the petitioner appearing on the cheque in question.

Having considered the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that some time can be allowed to the petitioner-accused to furnish the admitted signatures of contemporaneous period. 

Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is disposed of at the admission stage, permitting the petitioner to furnish his admitted signatures of contemporaneous period before the trial Court within two weeks, failing which, the order impugned in the revision shall hold good.

______________________________

JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY

21.02.2013

Note: Issue copy within a week.

                                  B/o.

                               Gkv/vjl