THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION No.2610 OF 2025 ORDER: 1. This criminal petition is filed challenging the order dated 05.02.2025in Crl.M.P. No. 577 of 2024 in Criminal Appeal No.70 of 2023, passed by the IV Additional District Judge, Tanuku, West Godavari District. 2. The petitioner is an accused in C.C.No.820 of 2018, wherein he was convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No.70 of 2023 before the IV Additional District Judge, Tanuku. Pending appeal, the petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.577 of 2024seeking to refer Ex.P.2, the original cheque, to the chemical expert, that is, the documents division, F.S.L. Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, to determine the age of the ink i.e., writing portions on the cheque.The said petition was dismissed. The learned District Judge, while dismissing the petition, held that the trial court, upon the petitioner’s application, had already sent Ex.P.2 to Mumbai and Delhi for expert opinion. However, they have not given any report. It is also recorded that the reports of experts from Mumbai and Delhi were not acceptable to the petitioner. As a last resort, the petitioner filed an application for the opinion of an expert, referring the original cheque to the chemical expert of the document division, F.S.L., Thiruvananthapuram. 3. The petitioner ought to have taken appropriate steps when the matter was pending before the trial court. Having failed to take appropriate steps when the matter was pending trial court, the attempt of the petitioner at a belated stage to refer Ex.P.2-cheque for determination of the age of the ink was rightly disallowed by the learned IV Additional District Judge.That apart, the determination of the age of the ink may not be of any help to the petitioner, as nothing forbids the drawer of the cheque to use the ink which has been manufactured and stored for several years. 4. Considering the well-considered order of the learned District Judge, the issue does not warrant the interference of this Court, and hence, the criminal petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed. 6. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal petition shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH. N Dt.12.03.2025 BV