mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2941 OF 2009 Deepak Banwarilal Saraf ... Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent ... Mr. Rajendra Shirodkar for the applicant. Ms. S.V. Gajare APP for the State. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATED : 6th November 2009 P.C. 1. Heard. 2. By this application, the applicant prays for quashing of the order dated 25th June 2008 passed by the Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 19th Court, Bombay framing the charge against the petitioner. 3. The State has filed a charge­sheet against the applicant for an offence punishable u/s.465,467, 468, 471 and 420 r/w section 34 of the IPC. The graveman of allegations against the petitioner is that the petitioner along with accused no.2 in furtherance of the common intention committed a forgery of a valuable document (affidavit and declaration dated 2nd December 1994) to claim that they had a right over the property belonging to the State. According to the applicant, he has not committed forgery and the declaration does not bear his signatures. The document was sent to the handwriting expert who has given an opinion that the alleged signature was not made by the petitioner. On the basis of the said report, learned counsel submits that there is no prima facie material to show that the petitioner is guilty of an offence of forgery and therefore, the Magistrate erred in framing a charge against him. 3. Opinion of handwriting expert is not conclusive. It is only an aid which is available to the Court/Magistrate for deciding whether a particular signature is made by the person who is alleged to have made it. The Magistrate is entitled to form his own opinion with the aid of opinion of an handwriting expert and also with the aid of the other evidence which may be produced before him. It therefore cannot be said only on the basis of the opinion of the handwriting expert that the Magistrate ought not to have framed the charge. The prosecution inter alia seeks to rely upon the evidence of Andrew Joseph Fernandes who in his statement recorded on 21st January 1998 has stated that the document in question was sent to his wife by the present applicant. Learned APP says that Andrew Joseph Fernandes is a witness in the case and would be examined. Thus, there is other material available against the applicant. It is not a case wherein there is no material whatsoever available against the applicant. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the Magistrate erred in framing of the charge and ought to have been discharged the applicant. 4. There is no merit in the application which is hereby dismissed. (D.G. KARNIK,J.)