1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1460 OF 2010 Rakesh D. Mishra ...Petitioner Vs. Shree Ambika Industrial Estate and Anr. ...Respondents ----- Mr.Sunil R. More for Petitioner Mr.S.A. Shaikh -APP for State ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 28TH JUNE, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. 2. The Petitioner is challenging the order of the Sessions Court for Greater Mumbai dated 12th April, 2010, whereby the Sessions Court was pleased to dismiss the application filed by the Applicant under section 391 of the Cr.P.C. for giving additional evidence. 4. Brief facts are that the complaint was filed by the Respondent No.1 against the present Petitioner for the offence punishable under section 138 of the 2 Negotiable Instruments Act. The Petitioner herein was convicted by the Trial Court and is sentenced to suffer S.I. for three months and to pay fine of Rs. 2,50,000/-. 5. Against the said order, the Petitioner preferred an appeal in the Sessions Court. During pendency of the appeal, an application was made for permitting the Petitioner-Applicant to lead additional evidence viz. to examine an hand-writing experts for the purpose of verifying the signatures on Exhibit P-38 and D-3. The Sessions Court rejected the said application and has observed that though the Petitioner had ample opportunities to make that application in the Trial Court no such application was preferred by him and lastly, the Sessions Court has observed that there is no dispute regarding the signatures appearing at Exhibit P-38 and D-3. The Petitioner has admitted that on both these documents his salesman had signed and, therefore, there was no question of sending these documents to the hand-writing experts. 6. In my view, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Sessions Court, particularly because, there is no dispute that the signature appearing at Exhibit P-38 and D-3 is of Applicant s salesman. This being the position, it would not be possible to 3 interfere with the impugned order passed by the Sessions Court. 7. The Writ petition is,accordingly, dismissed. The Sessions Court shall decide the appeal on merits and in accordance with law. (V.M. KANADE J.)