1. These revision petitions are sought to be filed by the accused against orders passed by the III Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajahmundry, in Crl.M.P.No.1577 of 2014 (dt.26.06.2014), Crl.M.P.No.1167 of 2014 (dt.06.06.2014) and Crl.M.P.No.1074 of 2014 (dt.06.06.2014) in C.C. No.172 of 2012.

2. The revision petitioner is the sole accused and the revision 2nd respondent-proprietary concern is the complainant of the above C.C, based on Ex.P-1 cheques said to have been issued by accused in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or other liability. In the course of trial, P.W-1 stated examined and complainants evidence stated closed and accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C and it is at the stage of his entering into defence, he filed these three applications, one is to send Ex.P-1 cheque, signature in dispute, to the hand writing expert to prove that it is a forged signature and not that of the accused that can be revealed by comparison of the signature with Vakalat filed by the accused and the other two petitions are under Section 311 Cr.P.C to receive five documents enclosed said to have been deposed by complainant as witness in one of the private complaint case in C.C. No.283 of 2012, where he made certain admissions regarding this case also and his deposition has a bearing and to confront him, his presence is required to serve as a defence witness for the accused person, revision petitioner herein.

3. All the three petitions after hearing from the counter opposed by the complainant, ended in dismissal by the lower Court by respective independent orders and so far as the application under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act concerned, with the observation referring to some of the expressions including Vadrevu Annapurnamma V. Vadrevu Bhima Sankara Rao AIR (1960 AP 359 [LQ/TelHC/1959/151] ), Renu Devi Kedia V. Seetha Devi (2004(6) ALT 429) and Neelakantappa V. M.Munirathnam (2005(1) ALD (Crl.) 161 (AP) that there is no assurance to take the signatures on the vakalat as admitted signature for the possibility of the party to disguise his signature of vakalat or memo of appearance strictly cannot be taken as admitted signatures and thereby signature of the cheque Ex.P-1 disputed signature to compare with vakalat serves no purpose in its dismissal and so far as the other two applications concerned, held that there are no grounds to summon the said P.Yedukondalu, the so called person sought to be examined as witness of the defence evidence in cheque bouncing case are not parties to the proceedings muchless to receive the 5 documents supra including the deposition in C.C. No.283 of 2012. It is impugning the same, the present three revisions are filed respectively against the three orders.

4. It is the contention of the revision petitioner in all the three revision petitions that the impugned orders of the learned Magistrate are contrary to law and unsustainable and without giving an opportunity to the accused to enter the defence and thereby sought to be set aside.

5. The complainant-2nd respondent to the revision petition was ordered, while admitting, permitted to take personal service and registered post receipts filed as one of the additional material papers herein in showing the complainants absence and it is also across the bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused person filed petition under Section 309 Cr.P.C before the trial Court in seeking adjournment by stating that these three revision petitions against orders of the learned Magistrate impugned supra are pending and posted to today including for appearance of the complainant and they got sufficient notice.

6. Taking consideration of these facts and the statement of the advocate from what is referred supra, it is taken to decide on merits in the absence of the complainant. Perused the material on record. As all the three applications arising out of the same cause, these three applications taken together for common disposal for the sake of convenience.

7. Now, the points that arises for consideration are (i) Whether the impugned orders of the learned Magistrate in dismissing receiving of document petition, summoning of one P.Yedukondalu as a witness to prove the documents filed with reference to the defence of the case and to send Ex.P-1 disputed signature to expert, are unsustainable and requires interference by this Court while sitting in the appeal within the scope of Section 397(2) Cr.P.C read with Section 401 Cr.P.C.

(ii) To what result

POINT No.1:

8. As per the settled expressions, even though the order against an interlocutory in nature, revision not otherwise sustainable when it got impact on ultimate result, the revision can be entertained, accordingly the revision is maintainable as it is shown the defence otherwise is permissible from not permitted by the impugned order.

9. Now, coming to the merits of the matter impugning orders of the lower Court; so far as sending of the document under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act concerned, though the Court got power to compare under Section 73 of Indian Evidence Act and there is even other remedies to prove either under Section 47 or 67 of Indian Evidence Act, the Court generally being not an expert in the comparison of signature and hand writings etc, with scientific expertise; take an experts opinion with reasons under Section 45 read with 51 of Indian Evidence Act in aid for its ultimate comparison under Section 73 of Indian Evidence Act and the law is fairly settled in this regard atleast from the expression of the Apex Court in Ajit Sawanth Majagvai V. State (AIR 1997 SC 1364) following earlier expression of the Apex Court in State (Delhi Administration) V. Pali Ram (AIR 1979 SC 14 [LQ/SC/1978/275] ). What the learned Magistrate observed in dismissing the application instead of obtaining specimen signatures of the accused in open Court in the presence of the complainant or his Advocate and to send the same to expert with any available admitted signatures, if not the Vakalat or Memo of appearance of what the accused claims as admitted, if the complainant also admits, if not to send even no admitted signatures available only the specimen signatures with the disputed signature of the cheque to the expert for comparison so that ultimately from the report supported by reasons contemplated by Section 51 of the Indian Evidence Act, for arriving a conclusion within its power under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act including with reference to other circumstances like age gap from the disputed signature to the specimen signature in change of any natural writing patterns. Thereby, the dismissal of the application by the lower Court on the ground that so called admitted signatures cannot be taken as admitted signatures as referred in the expressions, of the order does not mean the specimen signatures cannot be obtained to send the disputed signature for comparison with specimen signature if necessary with other admitted signatures if available. Accordingly, the impugned order is liable to be set aside so far as Crl.R.C.No.1404 of 2014.

10. Coming to the other two applications, one to receive documents and the other to summon a witness by name P.Yedukondalu, when it is the defence of the accused that the signature is forged one and he did not issue the cheque for discharge of any legally enforceable debt or other liability in rebutting the evidence of the complainant by entering the defence and in saying said evidence of Yedukondalu is relevant to serve the defence to be summoned. There is no need to dismiss the application with any hypothesis from the contention of the complainant saying there is no assurance of the said Yedukondalu depose muchless admit truth or otherwise of the earlier deposition of him. In fact a previous deposition of a living person is inadmissible of evidence as per the settled expression Kalyan Peoples Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Dulhanbibi (AIR 1966 SC 1072 [LQ/SC/1962/187] ), but for admissible for purpose of either corroboration if admitted under Section 157 of Indian Evidence Act to serve if not to contradict under Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act or under Section 155(3) of the Indian Evidence Act that too when the documents to be received including the earlier deposition of the witness within the said purpose. Thereby, the two impugned orders of the lower Court are also unsustainable.

11. Accordingly, all the revisions are allowed to receive the documents and with a requirement of the lower Court to summon the said P.Yedukondalu s a defence witness on behalf of the accused to prove his case, needless to say if at all Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act to be invoked that to be considered on own merits as per the settled expression of the Apex Court in Satpaul V. Delhi Administration (AIR 1976 SC 294 [LQ/SC/1975/379] ) further needless to say the accused person must be given a week time from the date of receipt of this order, to deposit the amount before the lower Court required to be payable for meeting the expert evidence charges and also expert witness summoning required, if any.

12. The pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this revision shall stand closed.