← Library
High Court for State of TelanganaCRLRC/691/2010dismissed

Mareedu Rama Someswara Rao v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh And Another

2017-12-14A.Shankar Narayana2 pages

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. SHANKAR NARAYANA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.691 OF 2010 JUDGMENT:

The present Criminal Revision Case is preferred by the petitioner, who is accused in C.C. No.143 of 2009 on the file of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Prohibition & Excise), Visakhapatnam, challenging the order, dated 15.03.2010, passed by the learned Magistrate in Crl.M.P. No.1105 of 2010 in the aforesaid Calendar Case, whereby and where-under, the request made under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to send the disputed document to the Handwriting Expert for second opinion was refused dismissing the application.

2. Heard Sri Aravala Rama Rao, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State of Andhra Pradesh.

3. The learned Magistrate referring to the ruling in Sreenivasulu v. N. Prakash Reddy1 and extracting the paragraph Nos.14, 17 and 18, while observing that the Handwriting Expert was not examined in the said Calendar Case and nothing is to be found to discredit the opinion of the Hand1. 2009 (4) ALD 745

ASN,J Crl.R.C.. No.691 of 2010 writing Expert and the document was earlier sent to the Handwriting Expert at the instance of the revision petitioner - accused himself, and merely because of the reason that the report was given against him, he cannot seek second opinion, dismissed the said application.

3. To seek opinion of Hand-writing Expert for the second time, on the mere ground that the first Hand-writing Expert did not give favourable opinion to a party, is no ground to allow him to send the document to another Hand-writing Expert, unless the report is shown to have tainted with some sort of influence by opposite party or there has been a total deviation. Therefore, there is no merit in the present Criminal Revision Case. The order under challenge does not warrant any interference.

4. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. As a sequel thereto, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the criminal revision case, stand closed.

__________________________ A. SHANKAR NARAYANA, J December 14, 2017.

Mgr