1 SNS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.140 OF 2011 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.122 OF 2011 Ms Tara N. Momaya ...Applicant. v/s. Surana Credit Corporation & Anr. ...Respondents. Mr. V.K.Gupta , adv. For the Applicant. Mr. V.K.Damle, adv. For the Respondent No.1. Shri D.R.More, APP for the R.No.2/State. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : MAY 5, 2011. P.C. 1 Heard. At the outset, it may be stated that on the last date, the learned counsel for the applicant had stated that the applicant is willing to pay double of the cheque amount to settle the matter. Today, he has come with pay order of Rs.75,000/- but the learned counsel for the respondent no.1 is not willing to accept and settle the matter. The learned counsel for the applicant also contends that some consent terms were filed in a suit before the City Civil Court. However, that aspect can be considered by the appellate Court. 2 Respondent had filed Criminal Case No.59 of 1995 under Sections 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and under Section 420 of 2 the I.P.C. against the present applicant in the year 2003. She was convicted by the trial Court and was sentenced to imprisonment as well as to pay fine for both the charges. She preferred Criminal Appeal No.24 of 2003, which is still pending before the Sessions Court at Malegaon. On 20.11.2010 she moved an application before the Sessions Court to refer the disputed cheque to the handwriting expert on the ground that cheque was not signed by her. Application was rejected by the Sessions Court and that order is sought to be challenged in the present revision application. 3 It appears that though the criminal case was pending before the trial Court from 1995 to 2003, no such application was ever made. Though the appeal is filed in 2003, for about 7 years no application was made before appellate Court. In view of these circumstances, the learned Additional Sessions Judge came to conclusion that application to refer document to the handwriting expert at such belated stage is only to prolong the case. There appears substance in the said observation. Therefore, I do not see any reason to interfere in the impugned order. 3 4 In the result, revision application stands dismissed. As the revision application itself is dismissed, Criminal Application No.122 of 2011 does not survive and stands disposed off. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)