- 1 - IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.602 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO.602 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO.602 OF 2009 Rajendra B.Ashar ...Petitioner vs. Dinaz A.Barucha & Anr. ...Respondents Mr.S.V.Marwadi, Sr.Counsel i/b Mr.Vinit Jain for the petitioner Mr.P.C.Avichal for Respondent no.1. Ms A.T.Javeri A.P.P. for State CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. DATE DATE DATE : APRIL 23,2009 : APRIL 23,2009 : APRIL 23,2009 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is the original accused in a complaint filed by the first respondent for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,1881. 2. Under the orders of the Sessions Court, certain documents were referred to the opinion of a Government handwriting expert. The State Examiner of documents CID (Crime) Maharashtra State submitted the report recording as under : ". I am unable to express any definite opinion as regards the identity or non-identity of the questioned signatures in English on Xerox with those on Exh.S-1 for want of adequate and suitable common text for the scientific expert examination." - 2 - Thereafter, an application was made by the petitioner before the learned Magistrate for referring the said documents to the Examiner, Intelligence Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs, Simla. The said application has been rejected. A revision application filed against the said order has been rejected by the Sessions Court. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the relevant paragraphs of the criminal manual. The opinion of the said examiner of documents has been already referred to above. The said expert was unable to give any definite opinion. Now, therefore a request is made to send the disputed documents to another Government expert. The case is fixed for final arguments. There was an opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence. The rules relied upon by the petitioner do not show that if one expert is unable to express any opinion, the second expert should be appointed. 4. In the circumstances, no case is made out for interference in this petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973. Petition is rejected. However, all contentions raised by the petitioner are kept open. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE