1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 552/2010 Satyanarayan Soni vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. Date of Order: 31.03.2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH BHAGWATI Mr. Amit Soni, for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Punia, Public Prosecutor for the State. ----- By way of this petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the order dated 6th March, 2010 whereby the learned trial court declined to send the cheque in dispute for obtaining the opinion of the expert from the Forensic Science Laboratory. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and perused the impugned order including other relevant material available on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has canvassed that he gave the cheque in dispute to the complainant but this cheque pertained to only Rs. 50,000/-. The complainant committed forgery and made the amount Rs. 1,50,000/- instead of Rs. 50,000/-. He prayed before the learned trial court that with a view to ascertain the correctness of the amount entered 2 in the cheque, the same may be sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for obtaining expert opinion. 4. Learned trial court is found to have observed that the amount in words has been written as Rs. One Lakh Fifty Thousand Only, which tallies with the amount written in figures. Since, there is no interpolation in the amount written in words, it cannot be said that the amount was interpolated by the complainant which was written in figures. Apart this, learned trial court also observed that it was not necessary for the court to send the cheque to Forensic Science Laboratory for obtaining any expert opinion. The court further observed that all these contentions raised by the learned counsel for the accused shall be adjudicated at the time of final decision of the case. The case has been pending before the learned trial court for the last 4-5 years and presently at the stage of final arguments. 5. Section 73 of Indian Evidence Act envisages that: “In order to ascertain whether a signature, writing or seal is that of the person by whom it purports to have been written or made, any signature, writing, or seal admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the Court to have been written or made by that person may be compared with the one which is to be proved, although that signature, writing, or seal has not been produced or proved for any other purpose.” 3 6. If the cheque is not being sent for obtaining expert opinion from the Forensic Science Laboratory, the court has got powers under Section 73 of Indian Evidence Act to compare the writing and this power can be used by the court at the time of final adjudication of the case. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned trial court. The impugned order passed by the learned trial court seems to be just and proper, which to my firm view warrants no intervention and thus, the petition deserves to be dismissed at the threshold. 7. For the reasons stated above, the criminal misc. petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. being bereft of merits stands dismissed. (MAHESH BHAGWATI), J. Mak/- 21