1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 226 OF 2011 (Sunil Digambar Patil (Gondchawar) vs. Haribhau Baliram Gondchawar and anr.) ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders _ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ CORAM : A.P. BHANGALE, J. DATED : 2 nd August, 2011. Heard Mr.A.R.Bansod, Adv. holding for Mr.P.S.Wathore, Adv. for the petitioner, Mr.S.S.Sarda, Adv. for respondent no.1 and Mrs.K.R.Deshpande, A.P.P. for respondent no.1. It appears that the petitioner herein had filed an application before the trial Magistratre for sending the disputed cheque and postal acknowledgment to the Handwriting Expert at the stage when the complainant had concluded his evidence and in defence, the bank witness was examined. According to the accused, the cheque in question was only signed and the amount in figures was written by him, but the other contents were filled in by the complainant without consent of the accused. According to the accused, there was difference in the signature on the postal acknowledgment and on 2 the cheque and signature on the acknowledgment was not of the accused. Under these circumstances, the accused had filed an application to send the cheque as also the postal acknowledgment to the Handwriting Expert. Considering the order passed by the learned trial Magistrate, the prayer appears to have been rejected mainly on the ground that the accused had admitted his signature on the cheque in question. Furthermore, the complainant had examined the postman who served notice upon the accused. The postman was also cross- examined by the accused. The accused did not dispute his address. Although the accused had admitted his signature on the cheque as also the figures mentioned on the cheque, such application was made for to refer the cheque to the Handwriting Expert. The learned trial Magistrate rightly held that the presumption which arose in favour of the complainant can be rebutted by the accused by cross-examining of the complainant or examining himself or other witnesses, if any in support of his defence. When the accused has admitted his signature on the disputed cheque as also the figures written in the amount column of the disputed cheque, it would be a futile exercise for him to pursue the application for to send the cheque and postal acknowledgment to the Handwriting expert, particularly 3 when the complainant has also examined postman in the case to prove service of the demand notice. Thus, the application was rightly rejected, particularly, when the prosecution u/s. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is summary in nature and no party can be allowed to adopt dilatory tactics to prolong or delay the trial in such cases. The accused may, however, examine witnesses by producing the list of witnesses in the trial and give an advance intimation of list of witnesses, if any to the learned Advocate for the complainant. I do not find any merit in the petition so as to interfere with the impugned judgment and order. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE jais