( 1 ) THE respondent/complainant filed the Crl. M. P. No. 6520 of 2002 to vacate the interim stay granted by this court and with the consent of both the parties, the Criminal Petition itself is being disposed of.

( 2 ) THE petitioner/accused filed this criminal petition under Section 482 of the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for short the Code questioning the order of the learned Principal Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Hyderabad, dated 3. 5. 2002 in Crl. M. P. No. 123/2002 in C. C. No. 40/1998.

( 3 ) THE petitioner/accused filed the said petition before the aforesaid Court under Section 293 of the Code read with section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 praying the Court to send Ex. P. 1 i. e. , typed application submitted by P. W. 1 and others to the District Co-operative Officer seeking permission to start a Co-operative bank, and also Ex. D. 1 typed 161 Cr. P. C. statement of P. W. I recorded by P. W. 6, deputy Superintendent of Police, A. C. B to Handwriting Expert to compare both of them and to say whether they were typed on one and the same typewriter. The learned judge after considering all the aspects in detail had ultimately arrived at a conclusion that there are no grounds to send the documents to an Expert and, accordingly, the said petition was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/accused had invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under section 482 of the Code.

( 4 ) SRI G. Venugopal Reddy, the learned Counsel for the petitioner/accused had submitted that the comparison of Exhibits p. 1 and D. 1 as whether they were typed on the same typewriter or not is a material question that can be decided by an expert and the opinion of an expert is highly essential since it is a science. The learned counsel further contended that even otherwise the grounds on which the application had been dismissed by the learned special Judge are totally unsustainable. Further, the learned Counsel contended that if the documents in question are sent to an expert for the purpose of comparison, no prejudice is going to be caused to the prosecuting agency and hence inasmuch as this is a valuable right, a right relating to the defence of the accused, the petitioner/ accused may be permitted to send these documents to an expert for the purpose of comparison whether these documents were typed on the same typewriter or not, which may definitely help the petitioner/ accused in relation to his defence. The learned Counsel also had taken me through section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and also Section 293 of the Code in this regard. Strong reliance was also placed on the decision reported in State (through CEI/ new Delhi) v. S. J. Choudhary, AIR 1996 sc 1491.

( 5 ) ON the contrary, Sri Pedda Babu, learned Standing Counsel representing the respondent, had submitted that it is sufficiently an old matter and only with a view to further protract it and delay the proceedings this application was thought off at this belated stage. The learned Counsel also further contended that apart from this aspect of the matter, there is a specific bar imposed by Section 19 (3) (c) of the prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 to grant stay and at any rate, in a matter of this nature, the inherent powers of the Section 482 of the Code cannot be invoked. The learned Counsel had placed strong reliance on the decision reported in Satyanarayan sharma v. State of Rajasthan, (2001) 8 scc 607. The learned Counsel also had pointed out to the reasons recorded by the learned Principal Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Hyderabad at paras 4 and 5 and had contended that the reasons are well justified reasons and, hence, the impugned order need not be interfered with in any way by this Court.

( 6 ) HEARD both the Counsel.

( 7 ) THE petitioner is the accused in C. C. No. 40 of 1998 on the file of the principal Special Judge for SPE and ACB cases, Hyderabad and the Deputy superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption bureau filed charge-shee