WP.1652-10 - 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No. 1652 OF 2010 Suresh Sadashiv Chavan ...Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents *** Mr. S. D. Thokade i/b Shriram S. Redji, for the Petitioner. Mrs. M. R. Tidake, APP, for the Respondent-State. *** CORAM: V. M. KANADE J. DATE : OCTOBER 5, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is original accused No.2. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned J.M.F.C. Kolhapur, who by a judgment and order dated 5-3-2010 was pleased to reject his application for sending the cheque to the hand writing expert, and also the order passed by the Sessions Court, who was pleased to dismiss the revision application and confirmed the order of the trial Court, the petitioner has filed this petitioner under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India. WP.1652-10 - 2 - 2. Brief facts of the case are that, a complaint was filed against the petitioner and one other person for the offence punishable under S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In the complaint, it was alleged that for the payment of dues of the work carried out by the original complainant, the Chairman and Secretary of the Trust had issued a cheque in question which was dishonoured. In the complaint, it was alleged that the said cheque bears signature of the Chairman and the Secretary of the Trust. During pendency of the trial, an application was preferred by the petitioner herein in which it was contended that he was the Secretary of the said Trust, however, he had resigned from the post of Secretary with effect from 15-2-2006 itself. It was further contended that the disputed cheque was issued by the Trust thereafter and it does not bear signature of the petitioner as a Secretary of the Trust. It was therefore, contended that the petitioner was unnecessarily involved and impleaded in the complaint. 3. During the cross-examination of the complainant, a defence was taken that signature on the cheque was not of the petitioner herein. However, the said suggestion was denied. A reply was filed by the complainant, in which it was contended that the cheque was dishonoured and the bank memo stated that the ‘funds were insufficient’. It was stated WP.1652-10 - 3 - that the cheque was not dishonoured on ground that the signature on the cheque differed with the specimen signature of the account holder. It was contended therefore, that it was not necessary to refer the said signature to the hand writing expert. It was also contended that said application was filed only with a view to protract the trial. The learned Magistrate, however, did not accept the said contention of the petitioner. The learned Magistrate has observed that the cheque was signed by accused No.1 as a Chairman of the Trust, who admitted his signature and who also admitted that he is Chairman of the Trust. It was submitted that in view of the admission of the signature by the Chairman of the Trust, there was no question of sending the said cheque to the Hand Writing Expert. The trial Court also observed that the petitioner could prove during the trial that he was no longer Secretary of the Trust. The said finding was confirmed by the Sessions Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the accused had every right to prove his defense and submitted that the Apex Court had held that this right should not be denied to him. He relied on the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of – (i) G. Someshwar Rao Vs. Samineni Nageshwar Rao & Anr. [ 2009 ALL MR (Cri) 2815 (S.C.)]; and (ii) Kalyani Baskar Vs. M. S. Sampoornam [2007 Bom C.R. (Cri.) 11]. WP.1652-10 - 4 - 4. In my view, therefore, there is no infirmity in the order passed by both the Courts below, since the Chairman has admitted his signature on the said cheque and also admitted that he was Chairman of the said Trust. There was no dispute about the signatures on the said cheque and therefore, the question of sending the cheque to the Hand Writing Expert does not arise. Therefore, both the Court below were justified in rejecting the application of the petitioner, herein. The ratio of the judgments on which reliance is placed by the petitioner will not apply to the facts of the present case. The writ petition is therefore, dismissed. However, the contentions raised by the petitioner are kept open. [ V. M. KANADE J.]