P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) THE respondent/complainant filed the Crl. M. P. No. 6520 of 2002 to vacate the interim stay granted by this court and with the consent of both the parties, the Criminal Petition itself is being disposed of. ( 2 ) THE petitioner/accused filed this criminal petition under Section 482 of the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for short the Code questioning the order of the learned Principal Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Hyderabad, dated 3. 5. 2002 in Crl. M. P. No. 123/2002 in C. C. No. 40/1998. ( 3 ) THE petitioner/accused filed the said petition before the aforesaid Court under Section 293 of the Code read with section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 praying the Court to send Ex. P. 1 i. e. , typed application submitted by P. W. 1 and others to the District Co-operative Officer seeking permission to start a Co-operative bank, and also Ex. D. 1 typed 161 Cr. P. C. statement of P. W. I recorded by P. W. 6, deputy Superintendent of Police, A. C. B to Handwriting Expert to compare both of them and to say whether they were typed on one and the same typewriter. The learned judge after considering all the aspects in detail had ultimately arrived at a conclusion that there are no grounds to send the documents to an Expert and, accordingly, the said petition was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/accused had invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under section 482 of the Code. ( 4 ) SRI G. Venugopal Reddy, the learned Counsel for the petitioner/accused had submitted that the comparison of Exhibits p. 1 and D. 1 as whether they were typed on the same typewriter or not is a material question that can be decided by an expert and the opinion of an expert is highly essential since it is a science. The learned counsel further contended that even otherwise the grounds on which the application had been dismissed by the learned special Judge are totally unsustainable. The learned counsel further contended that even otherwise the grounds on which the application had been dismissed by the learned special Judge are totally unsustainable. Further, the learned Counsel contended that if the documents in question are sent to an expert for the purpose of comparison, no prejudice is going to be caused to the prosecuting agency and hence inasmuch as this is a valuable right, a right relating to the defence of the accused, the petitioner/ accused may be permitted to send these documents to an expert for the purpose of comparison whether these documents were typed on the same typewriter or not, which may definitely help the petitioner/ accused in relation to his defence. The learned Counsel also had taken me through section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and also Section 293 of the Code in this regard. Strong reliance was also placed on the decision reported in State (through CEI/ new Delhi) v. S. J. Choudhary, AIR 1996 sc 1491 . ( 5 ) ON the contrary, Sri Pedda Babu, learned Standing Counsel representing the respondent, had submitted that it is sufficiently an old matter and only with a view to further protract it and delay the proceedings this application was thought off at this belated stage. The learned Counsel also further contended that apart from this aspect of the matter, there is a specific bar imposed by Section 19 (3) (c) of the prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 to grant stay and at any rate, in a matter of this nature, the inherent powers of the Section 482 of the Code cannot be invoked. The learned Counsel had placed strong reliance on the decision reported in Satyanarayan sharma v. State of Rajasthan, (2001) 8 scc 607 . The learned Counsel also had pointed out to the reasons recorded by the learned Principal Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Hyderabad at paras 4 and 5 and had contended that the reasons are well justified reasons and, hence, the impugned order need not be interfered with in any way by this Court. ( 6 ) HEARD both the Counsel. ( 6 ) HEARD both the Counsel. ( 7 ) THE petitioner is the accused in C. C. No. 40 of 1998 on the file of the principal Special Judge for SPE and ACB cases, Hyderabad and the Deputy superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption bureau filed charge-sheet against the petitioner for the offences punishable under sections 7, 11, 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and also Sections 468 and 471 of the indian Penal Code. When an application, which is referred to in supra, was filed for sending Ex. P. l and Ex. D. l for the purpose of comparison by an Expert, the learned Judge had dismissed the said application in Crl m. P. No. 123 of 2002 in C. C. No. 40 of 1998 by an order dated 3. 5. 2002. ( 8 ) 1 have perused the order made by the learned Judge and convincing reasons had been recorded in detail in paras 4 to 6 in general and at para 5 in particular. Apart from this aspect of the matter, the application was filed under Section 45 of the Indian evidence Act, 1872 and also Section 293 of the Code and these provisions read as follows:"45. Opinions of experts :when the Court has to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law, or of science, or art, or as to identity of handwriting or finger-impressions, the opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art, or in questions as to identity of handwriting or finger-impressions are relevant facts. Such persons are called experts. ""293. Reports of certain Government scientific Experts : (1) Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a government Scientific Expert to whom this section applies, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this Code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code. (2) The Court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine any such expert as to the subject matter of his report. (2) The Court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine any such expert as to the subject matter of his report. (3) Where any such expert is summoned by a Court and he is unable to attend personally, he may, unless the Court has expressly directed him to appear personally, depute any responsible officer working with him to attend the Court, if such officer is conversant with the facts of the case and can satisfactorily depose in Court on his behalf. (4) This Section applies to the following government Scientific Experts, namely:- (a) any Chemical Examiner or Assistant chemical Examiner to Government; (b) the Chief Inspector of Explosives; (c) the Director of the Finger Print Bureau; (d) the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay; (e) the Director, Deputy Director or Assistant director of a Central Forensic Science laboratory or a State Forensic Science laboratory; (f) the Serologist to the Government. " ( 9 ) SECTION 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 deals with previous sanction necessary for prosecution and section 19 (3) of the said Act reads as hereunder:"19 (3 ). Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) (a) no finding, sentence or order passed by a special Judge shall be reversed or altered by a Court in Appeal, confirmation or revision on the ground of the absence of, or any error, omission or irregularity in, the sanction required under subsection (1), unless in the opinion of that court, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby; (b) no Court shall stay the proceedings under this Act on the ground of any error, omission or irregularity in the sanction granted by the authority, unless it is satisfied that such error, omission on irregularity has resulted in a failure of justice; (c) no Court shall stay the proceeding under this Act on any other ground and no court shall exercise the powers of revision in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any inquiry, trial, appeal or other proceedings. " ( 10 ) IT is pertinent to note that Section 19 (3) (c) of the said Act specifically states that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, no Court shall stay the proceedings under this Act on any other ground and no Court shall exercise powers of revision in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any inquiry, trial, appeal or other proceedings. While dealing with this question, the Apex Court in Satyanarayan sarma s case (supra) had arrived at a conclusion that in view of the specific bar even inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code may not be exercised. No doubt, the learned Counsel for the petitioner placed strong reliance on State (through CBI/new Delhi) case (supra) to convince the Court that the word science in Section 45 of the Indian Evidence act, 1872 includes experts in typewriters. There cannot be any dispute relating to this proposition. But, in view of the specific bar and also in view of the reasons in detail recorded by the learned Judge even if the documents are sent to an expert, it is not going to help the petitioner/accused in any way and I am thoroughly satisfied that this application is thought off only with a view to further delay the proceedings. Hence, viewed from any angle, the Criminal Petition is devoid of merits and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.