MEKALA HARI BABU Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri M.Dharma Teja, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.S.Ramakrishna Prasad, learned counsel for unofficial respondent and the learned Addl.Public Prosecutor representing the State.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an accused in C.C.520/2017 on the file of learned II Addl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class, at Ongole, Prakasam District for the offence U/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; he filed an application U/s.45 of the Indian Evidence Act to send Ex.P-1 cheque and Ex.P-7 promissory note to a hand writing expert for comparison of the signatures of the accused and hand writings of the complainant available on the cheque and promissory note.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the petitioner has no acquaintance with the complainant and that the promissory note was a forged document, and therefore, he requested the learned Magistrate to send the cheque and the promissory note to a hand writing expert for his opinion on the writings available on the cheque and the promissory note; but, the learned Magistrate refused the request of the accused that he filed application after lapse of several years to protract the trial proceedings; therefore, the order of the learned Magistrate is not sustainable in law.