NEELAKANTAPPA Vs. M MUNIRATHNAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent filed a private complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner, which was taken cognizance as CC No.482 of 2002 by the learned Magistrate. In that case, the petitioner filed Crl.M.P. No. 1530 of 2004 to send the dishonoured cheque, to a Handwriting Expert for comparison with his admitted signature on the Vakalath. First respondent filed a counter contending that in case the Court were to allow the said petition, served copy of summons, specimen signatures of the petitioner available in the bank account and personal service records in APSRTC, Adoni which contain the admitted signatures of the petitioner also may be sent to an Expert. By the order dated 15.4.2004, the learned Magistrate allowed Crl.MP No. 1530 of 2004 and directed the dishonoured cheque, and the signatures of the petitioner taken in open Court be sent to an Expert for his opinion. Thereafter, first respondent filed Crl.M.P. No.3152 of 2004 seeking leave of the Court to send the Vakalath, summons, signatures of the petitioner on 313 Cr PC, specimen signatures of the petitioner in the bank at the time of opening of the account etc. also for comparison with the disputed signature of the petitioner on the dishonoured cheque to the Expert. In spite of opposition by the petitioner, by the order impugned in this petition the learned Magistrate allowed the aforesaid Crl.M.P. No.3152 of 2004. Hence this petition challenging the said order.

(2.) The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that since first respondent had in Crl.M.P. No. 1530 of 2004 took a plea that in case the dishonoured cheque is to be sent to an expert for his opinion, the documents mentioned in his counter also be sent to the Expert, but since the learned Magistrate while allowing the said petition directed sending of the signatures of the petitioner only for comparison with the signatures on the dishonored cheque it should be deemed that the request made in the counter of first respondent was negatived and so first respondent filing a separate petition to send some more documents to Expert for comparison with the disputed signature is not maintainable because allowing of that petition tantamounts to reviewing the earlier order passed in Crl.M.P. No. 1530 of 2004 and since the Trial Court has no power to review its earlier order, the order allowing Crl.M.P. No.3152 of 2004 is liable to be set- aside.

(3.) I am unable to agree with the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that allowing of Crl.M.P. No.3152 of 2004 tantamounts to reviewing the earlier order passed in Crl.M.P.No.1530 of 2004, the operative portion of which reads: