M.V.Muralidaran, J. - (1.) The first accused in the above final report in C.C.No 1180 of 2007 facing charge under Sections 406, 468, 471 read with 34 IPC on the file of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, For Exclusive Trial of CCB Cases and CBCID Cases (relating to cheating cases in Chennai) and CBCID Metro Cases, Chennai is before this Court challenging the impugned order of allowing the 2nd respondent's application in Crl.M.P.No.1207 of 2014 under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act sought for expert opinion on a General Power of Attorney dated 30.09.2005.
(2.) It is the case of the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant that the petitioner herein along with the other accused A2 and A3 forged the signature of the defacto complainant and made ready a fake General Power of Attorney dated 30.09.2005 and through the said document alienated the properties of the 2nd respondent. Hence a complaint came to be lodged and on investigation the 1st respondent police found the accused committed the offences of forgery and cheating, thereby laid the above final report in C.C.No.1180 of 2007 on the file of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, For Exclusive Trial of CCB Cases and CBCID Cases (relating to cheating cases in Chennai) and CBCID Metro Cases, Chennai for the offences under Sections 406, 468, 471 read with 34 IPC and the same was taken on file.
(3.) In the said circumstance the 2nd respondent herein filed an application under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act seeking for expert opinion on the General Power of Attorney dated 30.09.2005. The substance of the application was that it is indispensable and imperative to send the General Power of Attorney dated 30.09.2005 before the Forensic Lab at Hyderabad or Delhi for comparison with that of the admitted signatures of the petitioner contained in copy of sale deed dated 21.09.2005, as the same would enable the Court to come to right conclusion. The 2nd respondent also undertook to bare the charges and cost thereto in sending the above document.;