1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2547/2009. Sau.Seema Uttamrao Gaikwad - APPLICANT VERSUS Ambajogai Peoples Cooperative Bank Ltd.,Ambajogai. - RESPONDENT ***** Mr.BV Thombre, Advocate for Applicant; Mr.TG Gaikwad, Adv. h/for Mr. VD Salunke,Advocate for Respondent. ----- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 21st August, 2009. PER COURT : . Heard learned Counsel extensively. 2) In the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for issuance of a cheque in the capacity as a Guarantor to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/-, the Bank had also produced the Guarantee-deed, alleged to have been executed by the accused/applicant herein. The matter concluded and it was at the stage of statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The applicant/accused herein made her statement/defence in which she did not dispute about signing the cheques, but, according to her, 2 the cheques were blank when signed were issued with the rubber stamp of the Welfare institution. The applicant/accused herein specifically contended that the signatures or the rubber stamp on the Guarantee-deed are false, fabricated and they do not bear her signatures or the rubber stamp of the institution. It was in this situation, vide Exhibit-92, to make the cards clear, an application was made by the bank, indicating if the accused agrees, the disputed signatures at Exhibit-34 and admitted signatures at Exhibit-21, be sent for examination to the Hand-writing Expert. 3) The learned Judge allowed the said application and directed that the Guarantee-deed, Exh.34 be sent to the Hand-writing Expert for ascertaining the signatures on it, including the rubber stamp, on payment of charges by the original complainant. 4) I do not see any infirmity or illegality on the part of the learned Judge in passing such orders. The position of law is quite clear. The lacunae, if it is surfaced in the prosecution, is not to be concluded with, as a fallout of oversight, committed by the complainant or his counsel. Here in this case the accused came with a defence that the Guarantee-deed (Exhibit-34) does not bear her signatures. It should have been far betteer for the 3 applicant/accused herein to have herself come forward to send the disputed document for getting them examined by the Expert. She having failed to do so, it was in the fitness of situation, the complainant, based on statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., ventured to do so. It cannot be said that the prosecution is activated with any malice or the lacunae is sought to be filled in. The order does not suffer from any illegality. No interference is warranted. Criminal Application dismissed. ( K.U.CHANDIWAL ) JUDGE bdv/cran2547.09