Order:

This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed against the order dated 29.03.2022 passed in Crl.MP No.111 of 2019 in Criminal Appeal No.193 of 2017 by the learned V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, in sending the cheque to Nutron Activation Analysis, BARC, Mumbai for determination of age of ink/signature of 2nd respondent herein.

2. A private complaint has been filed against 2nd respondent herein for the offence punishable under Section 138 read with 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the same was taken on file as CC No.184 of 2016 on the file of the learned II Special Magistrate, Vijayawada. The learned Magistrate, after full fledged trial, convicted 2nd respondent herein of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six (6) months and also to pay fine of Rs.57,00,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six (6) months. Out of fine amount, it was ordered that the complainant is entitled to Rs.56,90,000/- as compensation under Section 357(1)(b) Cr.P.C. Against the said judgment, 2nd respondent herein filed Criminal Appeal No.193 of 2017 on the file of the learned V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada.

3. In the said Criminal Appeal, 2nd respondent filed Crl.MP No.111 of 2019, under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, to send Ex.P2 cheque to the Nutron Activation Analysis, BARC, Mumbai to ascertain the age of signature on Ex.P2 cheque, contending that the signature on Ex.P2 is of the year 2007 and not of the year 2015 as contended by the petitioner herein. It is further contended that both the petitioner herein and his wife laid more than 15 cases against the parents of 2nd respondent herein claiming huge sums though they have no capacity to lend those amounts.

4. A counter affidavit was filed by the petitioner herein in the said Crl.MP stating that the petition is not maintainable as the provision of law would not be applicable in the Criminal Appeal. According to the petitioner herein, prior to commencement of trial in the trial Court itself, he filed a suit for recovery of entire amount due under a promissory note and 2nd respondent herein filed written statement in the said suit, wherein the allegations raised in the affidavit were not referred to nor mentioned, and basing on the pleadings, 2nd respondent had examined the petitioner herein. Denying all the grounds mentioned in the petition by 2nd respondent herein, the petitioner herein prayed that there are no grounds to allow the petition in the Appellate Court, that too without raising of such ground at any point of time during the course of trial, in the trial Court.

5. By an order dated 29.03.2022, the learned V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, while relying upon the decisions reported in T. Rajalingam v. State of Telangana rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana and AP., Hyderabad1 and G.V. Rami Reddy v. D. Mohan Raju2, allowed the petition filed by 2nd respondent herein and ordered to send Ex.P2 cheque to Nutron Activation Analysis, BARC, Mumbai for determination of age of ink/signature of 2nd respondent herein/appellant. Against the said order, the petitioner herein has resorted in filing the present Criminal Petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that 2nd respondent herein has not raised the issue of determination of age of ink on Ex.P2 document at any point of time during the course of trial, before the trial Court. For the first time, at the stage of appeal, he has come with the said plea only with a view to dodge the proceedings in appeal. He relied upon a decision reported in

1 2017 (3) ALT (Crl.) 203 (AP)

2 2019 (2) ALD 481 (AP)

R. Jagadeesan v. N. Ayyasamy3, wherein the Madras High Court rejected the request for sending the documents for ascertaining the age of the writings by observing thus.

“In order to ascertain the correctness of the said sta