ORDER:

1. The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the Petitioner seeking to send Ex.P1 cheque to the handwriting expert for comparison with admitted signatures of the Petitioner in C.C.No.215 of 2014, pending on the file of III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chittoor on the private complaint filed by the 1st respondent for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (For short ‘NI Act’).

2. Petitioner is facing the trial in a Section 138 N.I. Act case. She denied her signature on the subject cheque, vide Ex.P1, marked in the said case. She filed a petition under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act, in Crl.M.P.No.179 of 2017, which was allowed on 24.11.2017. While so, she was directed to produce her admitted signatures for comparison. Thereafter, the matter adjourned till 27.09.2018, and then it was dismissed for non-

prosecution.

3. Petitioner carried the matter in revision, vide Criminal Revision Petition No.60 of 2018 before IX Additional District & Sessions Judge, Chittoor and it was dismissed on 31.10.2019. Learned Judge dismissed the revision, instead of treating the signature of the petitioner on Vakalatnama as an admitted signature to send it to the expert for comparison with the signature in disputed cheque.

4. It is now submitted that the Petitioner is ready to produce contemporaneous signatures for comparison with disputed signatures as on Ex.A1, and that she will be put to irreparable loss and hardship, if the same is not allowed.

5. Heard Sri Suresh Reddy Kalava, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Sri Challa Gunaranjan, learned counsel for Respondent No.1/Complainant and Ms. Prasanna Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State/R2.

6. As seen from above, the petition under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act, during the pendency, was allowed and the Petitioner was directed to produce her contemporaneous admitted signatures for comparison. It is also not in dispute that the matter was adjourned from time to time, for more than 10 months for production of such signatures by the petitioner. The order passed by the learned trial Judge dismissing the petition, when she did not show any interest for furnishing contemporaneous admitted signatures for such a long time appears to be fair. Having invited such order, petitioner challenged the said order in revision. During the pendency of revision, petitioner intended to furnish her admitted signatures on the Vakalat.

7. The date of cheque is 26.12.2012. When the matter is taken up for hearing, petitioner wanted to file her educational certificates and identity card of the year 2012 and 2019 and prayed to allow to file such documents for sending the same to the expert for comparison.

8. Learned counsel for Respondent No.1 rightly refuted against such request arguing that these documents were very much available with the petitioner, all through the case. When the matter reached at the stage of final arguments, only to delay the proceedings, filing of the petition under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act is made. It is argued that no bonafide on the part of the petitioner to allow the petition. Learned counsel further submits that allowing the present petition leads to abuse of process of Court as they have been pursuing their matter of cheque dishonor case for the past one decade.

9. It is significant to mention that the opinion of the expert is only an opinion, but not exact science to completely rely on it. It does not take the place of substantial evidence. Despite the trial court allowing the application, lethargic attitude was adopted by the Petitioner by failing to comply the condition. Even otherwise, no original documents are filed seeking such request at this stage as well and the delay remains unexplained. Giving further opportunity to the petitioner amounts to abuse of process of Court, since the matter is of the year 2014. Hence, this Court is not inclined t