1 Cri-A-3111-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Mhi CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3111 OF 2010 Shri Tejas Champaklal Thakkar ... Applicant vs. Reena Mohan Mali & anr. ... Respondent Mr. Irfan Shaikh i/b. S.B.Shetye,Advocate, for the applicant Mr.Rajesh More, APP, for the respondent No.2 - State. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 10th March, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant. 2. The applicant seeks leave to prefer appeal against acquittal of the accused/respondent in S.C.C. No.120/2007 before the JMFC Dahanu. According to the complainant, he had advanced loan amounts to the accused from time to time. For the total amount of Rs.2,50,000/- due, she executed a declaration acknowledging the liability to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/- and also issued a cheque dated 11.12.2007. The cheque was dishonoured and thereafter notice was issued. Inspite of the same, she did not make payment. 2 Cri-A-3111-10.sxw 3. The accused denied that she had executed any declaration and also had issued any cheque. She denied the signature on the cheque as well as dedeclaration. On request by the accused, her specimen signature was obtained and the said specimen signature and the disputed signature were referred to the handwriting expert. The handwriting expert was examined as a defence witness. He stated that the signatures on the declaration and the cheque were of the same person. but they were not the signatures of the person whose specimen was taken. The trial Court believed it and acquitted her. 4. The learned Counsel for the applicant contends that the trial court committed an error in considering only specimen signatures for comparison with her disputed signature. It is true that it would have been better if the admitted signature could have been referred to the handwriting expert along with the disputed signatures. However when the accused had denied her signature on the cheque, the initial burden was on the complainant to establish that the signature was signed by the accused. Therefore, to discharge that burden, the complainant could have made a request to the trial Court to refer the disputed signature as well as the admitted signature of the accused available with the Bank for comparison, but it appears that no such request was made by the complainant. Having failed to discharge the burden to prove that the signature on the cheque was of the accused, 3 Cri-A-3111-10.sxw now the complainant cannot make grievance that the trial Court had committed error in sending the disputed signature for comparison with the specimen signature obtained before the Court. Taking into consideration the material on record, it is difficult to come to conclusion that the order of the trial Court is per- se wrong, illegal or perverse. 5. Therefore, the application seeking leave to prefer appeal stands rejected. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)