( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3408 OF 2007 Ramrao s/o. Ganpat Deshmukh .. Applicant Versus Laxman s/o. Maruti Dange and ors. .. Respondents Shri S.P. Chapalgaonkar, Advocate for the applicant. Shri S.K. Shinde, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mrs. B.R. Khekale, A.P.P. for respondent No.5 CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 07.01.2010 P.C. :- 1. This is an application for leave to appeal against order of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Rahta, Dist. Ahmednagar, whereby the Court acquitted the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 of offences punishable under sections 499 & 500 read with section 34 of the I.P.C. in R.T.C. No. 62 of 2005, decided on 26.07.2007. 2. Briefly stated it is case of the present applicant/complainant that he was working as Canal Inspector, ( 2 ) Harison Branch, Irrigation Department. Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 had filed complaint application against him addressed to the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Nasik, so also Dy. Engineer and Minister of Irrigation Department. By such application dated 02.07.1994 he was defamed and therefore he filed private complaint. 3. The Trial Court acquitted the accused mainly on the ground that it is not proved that impugned application Exh. 75/2 was not proved to be signed and sent by any of respondent Nos. 1 to 4. 4. Heard Adv. Shri S.P. Chapalgaonkar for the applicant, Adv. Shri S.K. Shinde for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and A.P.P. Mrs. B.R. Khekale for respondent No.5. 5. The learned advocate for the applicant drew my attention to paras 5 and 10 of the judgment of the Trial Court and argued that the Trial Court refused to exercise its power under Section 73 of the Evidence Act and as argued by the learned advocate for the complainant, the Court had every right to compare signatures on application Exh. 75/2 with ( 3 ) Vakalatnama produced at Exh.25 and the Court wrongly held that the signatures were not duly proved and the authorship of the document was not proved. 6. On the other hand Adv. Shri S.K. Shinde argued that burden of proving case is necessarily on the complainant and he could not have avoided his responsibility of proving his case. So far as Section 73 of the Evidence Act is concerned, it lays down 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 the 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. Adv. Shri Shinde also argued that no application was given before the Trial Court calling upon it to exercise power under section 73 of the Evidence Act. 7. In criminal prosecution it is now well settled that it is burden on the prosecution or on the complainant in private complaint to prove its/his case beyond reasonable ( 4 ) doubt. Had there been some evidence to prove authorship of the document in question as that of respondent Nos. 1 to 4, the Court could have exercised power under Section 73 of the Evidence Act to satisfy itself. However, expectation of putting entire burden on the Court to form opinion on comparison of signatures in criminal cases for basing conviction is unreasonable and unwarranted. It is not that the complainant could not have proved authorship of the document. It is true that there might not be an eye witness available in whose presence impugned application have been written and signed. However, there are other modes by which authorship of a document can be proved. The complainant could also have examined the person who was knowing or acquainted with the signature or handwriting of the accused persons. Secondly the impugned document could have been sent for the opinion of the handwriting expert. The complainant did not opt any of these or other modes recognized by law for proving his case and at the time of argument he wanted the Court to exercise power under section 73 of the Evidence Act, in respect of document which was not exhibited or proved. Moreover, it is not only signature but execution of document which has to be proved. In the facts and circumstances of ( 5 ) the case, in my opinion, the judgment of the Trial Court is legal, proper and reasonable. In the circumstances, leave to appeal against acquittal is rejected. The Criminal Application stands dismissed. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2010/JAN10/cra3408.07