ORDER:

1 This revision is filed under Section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. challenging the order dated 05.11.2014 passed in Crl.M.P.No.2405 of 2014 in C.C.No.174 of 2014 on the file of IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kakinada.

2 For the sake of convenience, parties to this revision will hereinafter be referred to as they are arrayed before the trail Court.

3 The factual matrix that led to filing of the present revision is as follows:

4 The respondent filed a private complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on the file of V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada. After following the due procedure, the learned V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada has taken cognizance of the offence against the petitioner under Section 138 of N.I. Act and numbered the complaint as C.C.No.60 of 2009 and issued summons. During the pendency of the case, the petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.3417 of 2010 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to send the disputed signature on the cheque and promissory note to the handwriting expert for comparison with his admitted signatures and the said petition was allowed on 13.10.2010. Thereafter, the matter was transferred to the Court of IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kakinada in view of the pendency of C.C.No.19 of 2012 and 13 of 2012 for joint trial and disposal. The Court below received the opinion of the handwriting expert. After completion of 313 Cr.P.C. examination, the petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.2405 of 2014 in C.C.No.174 of 2014 to send specimen signatures of the petitioner on the bank account opening form and the disputed signatures on the cheque and the promissory note to the handwriting expert for comparison. The respondent opposed the said petition inter alia contending that the petition is filed only to drag on the proceedings. The trail Court, after hearing both sides, dismissed the petition. Hence the present revision.

5 Heard Sri MRS. Srinivas the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.

Hariprasad Reddy, the learned counsel for the respondent.

6 The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the finding of the trail Court that the petition is filed at a belated stage is not sustainable either on facts or on law. He further submitted that the respondent has no right whatsoever to oppose the petition, having filed the memo to call for the bank account opening form of the petitioner to send the same to the handwriting expert along with the disputed signatures for comparison. The trail Court ought to have sent the bank account opening form along with the disputed signatures to the expert having allowed the memo filed by the respondent.

7 Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there is no illegality or irregularity in the orders passed by the trail Court to interfere. He further submitted that the trail Court has assigned cogent and valid reasons to its findings.

8 Now the point for consideration in this revision case is “Whether the order passed by the trail Court is legally sustainable or not?”

9 The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the principle laid down in Medikonda Rama Swarajyalakshmi Vs. Posina Sathyanarayana and another. The relevant portion of the said judgment is extracted hereunder:

“……From going through the impugned order, I find that the petition filed by the revision petitioner has been dismissed on the ground that the petitioner/ 1st defendant has filed the present petition at a belated stage and the same is intended only to protract the matter and enjoy the benefits from the land for some more time. But, in my opinion, it cannot be dismissed on the ground of belatedness. Even though the opinion of the handwriting expert cannot be conclusive, it is important piece of evidence to hold whether the suit document is forged document or not. Though, no doubt, the Courts have also got power under Section 73 of the Evidence Act to compare the disputed signature in ord