( 1 ) THESE two petitions raise an important question of law as to the scope and applicability of S. 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

( 2 ) FOR the sake of convenience, the facts in Criminal Petition No. 2888 of 1999 are mentioned as the issue involved in both the matters is one and the same.

( 3 ) THE first petitioner in the Criminal Petition No. 2888 of 1999 filed a suit O. S. No. 85 of 1990 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda against the third respondent herein for recovery of an amount of Rs. 53,527. 00. The said claim was made on the basis of a receipt-dated 14-1-1988 said to have been issued by the third respondent herein. The second petitioner is said to be the scribe of the receipt. Petitioners 3 and 4 are said to be the attestors of the said receipt.

( 4 ) DURING the course of trial of the above-mentioned suit, the third respondent herein got the above-mentioned receipt referred to handwriting expert for his opinion. According to the third respondent the signature on the said receipt was not of his and was a forged signature. The expert to whom the receipt was referred to opined that the signature was not that of the third res