- (1.) This revision petition has been filed against an order in C. M. P. No. 234 of 1970 filed by the complainant to send a document Ex. P. 3. to the handwriting expert for his opinion after comparing the same with the complainant's admitted signature.
(2.) The complainant had proposed the candidature of one Krishnareddi at the Panchayat Elections. It is alleged that the accused filed his own nomination in the same constituency showing that the complainant had also proposed his name and affixed his signature on the nomination form. A complaint was registered for offences under Sections 465 and 471 I. P. C. and the complainant had examined his witnesses. Some of the complainants's witnesses were also further cross-examined. At that stage, when P. W. 2 was to be cross-examined, the complainant filed C, M. P. No. 234 of 1970 requesting the Court to seud the admitted signature of the complainant and the disputed signature for the opinion of handwriting expert. That was opposed by the accused. Although the complainant filed the petition under Sections 252 and 510 Cr.P.C. the learned Magistrate purporting to invoke his powers under Section 540 Cr. P. C. directed that the document should be sent to an Expert.
(3.) In this revision petition, Mr.Padmanabha Reddy learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that under Section 540 Cr. P. C. only a witness can be summoned for being examined or re-examined in a Court if his evidence appears to be essential for a just decision of the case, but a document cannot be pent for the opinion of an expert, I find sufficient force in this contention. Under Section 540 Cr. P. C. only a witness may be called or recalled in the discretion of the Court and where it appears to the Court that the evidence of any witness is essential for a just decision of the case, it becomes the duty of the Court to summon him and examine him irrespective of whether he is cited as a witness by the complainant or not.;