AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N. Ananda
When the matter is taken up for hearing, it is noticed that this court in Criminal Petition No.3385/2008 dated 16.09.2009, has directed the trial court to decide the case as early as possible, not later than four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order made in Criminal Petition No.3385/2008. Even if it is assumed that the trial court had received the order in September 2009. the matter should have been decided on or before the end of January 2010, but still the matter is pending before the trial court. The instant petition is filed against the order of trial court, rejecting the request of petitioner to produce the certified copy of handwriting expert and examine the handwriting expert. The trial court has held that handwriting expert was not appointed in C.C.No.56/2007. Therefore, petitioner cannot examine the handwriting expert and the application was rejected.
The learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner shall be given an opportunity to examine the handwriting expert. On hearing the learned counsel for petitioner, I find that handwriting expert was not appointed in C.C.No.56/2007. On the other hand, the handwriting expert was appointed in C.C.No. 16547/2002. on the file of VII ACMM at Bangalore. The trial court has held that petitioner cannot be permitted to rely on the certified copy of report of handwriting expert in C.C.No. 16547/2002 and prove the said report in the instant case. Therefore, I do not find any reasons to interfere with the impugned order. The petition is accordingly dismissed. The trial court has ignored the direction in Criminal Petition No.3385/2008. Therefore, the trial court is directed to decide the case on merits, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.