BOPPANI RAMADASU Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Criminal Revision Case is filed by the complainant under Sections 397 and 401 Cr. P. C. aggrieved by the order, dated 12. 07. 2019, passed in Crl. M. P. No. 347 of 2019 in C. C. No. 1177 of 2016 on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Prohibition and Excise Offences) at Nalgonda, wherein an application filed by the 2nd respondent/accused for sending ExP1-Promissory Note and Ex. P2-Cheque to the Forensic Science Laboratory for determining the age of ink in drafting the disputed documents, was allowed.

(2.) The averments in the aforesaid petition are that the revision petitioner/complainant filed a private complaint against the 2nd respondent/accused in respect of the offence committed by him under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the same was taken on file by the trial Court as C. C. No. 1177 of 2016.

(3.) In the aforesaid Calendar Case, the revision petitioner/complainant was examined as P. W. 1 and the Scribe of the Promissory Note was examined as P. W. 2 and got marked Exs. P1 to P6. On behalf of the 2nd respondent/accused, D. Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and Ex. D1 was marked. It is the plea of the 2nd respondent/accused that the writings appearing on Ex. P1-Promissory Note and Ex. P2-Cheque do not belong to him and they are forged and fabricated and that it is required to be determined the age of the ink used in drafting the said documents. In this background, the 2nd respondent/accused filed the aforesaid Crl. M. P. No. 347 of 2019 seeking to send Exs. P1 and P2 to the Hand Writing and Finger Print Expert for comparison with his admitted signatures under Ex. D1-Empty Promissory Note in order to determine the age of the ink and size of Ex. D1. The revision petitioner/complainant contested the said petition by filing a counter-affidavit before the trial Court. It is the contention of the revision petitioner/complainant that the 2nd respondent/accused himself admitted in his evidence that he has executed the documents under Exs. P1 and P2. It is further contended that there is no such scientific technology or method available before the F. S. L. , Hyderabad, to determine the age of the ink in drafting the disputed documents and as such the petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.