* 1 * WP-2719-2010 15. Nov. 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2719 OF 2010 Pratapsinh Ravaji Thakkar ..... Petitioner V/s. Sanjeevani Shripati Mohite & Ors. ..... Respondents Mr. P.R. Arjunwadkar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anand S. Patil, Advocate for respondent no.1. Mr. J.P. Kharge, APP for State-respondent no.2. CORAM :- Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. 15 November, 2011. P.C. :- 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, taken up for hearing immediately. 2. This writ petition challenges the order dated 21st August, 2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge IIIrd, Kolhapur in Criminal Revision Application No. 196 of 2010 allowing the application at Exhibit-82 filed by respondent no.1-accused for sending the cheques in question for examination by the handwriting expert in order to find out (i) the age of the ink used, (ii) the difference in the ink and (iii) whether there is any alteration in the hand writing on the cheque. Similar applications filed by respondent no.1 during * 2 * WP-2719-2010 15. Nov. 2011 the pendency of the trial had been rejected by the trial court and the order of rejection was confirmed by the District Court. It appears that after the entire trial was over i.e. after recording of the evidence and recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. recorded, respondent no.1 renewed his request by filing the application at Exhibit-82. The application simply states the prayer without setting out any reason for sending the cheques to the handwriting expert. According to the petitioner, in two of the cheques there is alteration in the date of the cheque, the amount mentioned in the cheques and the signature on the cheques. The trial Court had rejected the application by its order dated 8th July, 2010. Respondent no.1 preferred Criminal Revision Application No. 196 of 2010 against the order which was considered by the Sessions Court and allowed. 3. Mr. Arjunwadkar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application at Exhibit-82 was nothing but an attempt on the part of respondent no.1 to delay the proceedings. According to him, respondent no.1 had complete opportunity during the course of cross-examination of the petitioner to set out her defence. It was necessary for her to atleast bring the necessary material on record to justify filing of the application. In the absence of such material, the Sessions Court could not have allowed the application. Mr. Patil, learned counsel for respondent no.1 on the other hand submits that, the impugned order is just and correct in the circumstances of * 3 * WP-2719-2010 15. Nov. 2011 the case. 4. It is pertinent to note that respondent no.1 does not dispute that she had issued the two cheques in question. The cross-examination of the petitioner, as also, the statement under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code of respondent no.1 does not even so much as mention as to what was the original amount mentioned by her in the two cheques and what was the alteration carried out thereon. Similarly, there is no suggestion as regards the matter on the cheques as written originally by respondent no.1 which is alleged to have been altered. It is not the case of respondent no.1 that she had issued blank cheques to the petitioner or that the hand written portion on the cheques was in her handwriting. In these circumstances, there is no material whatsoever on record to justify the order of directing the two cheques for being sent to handwriting expert. It would unnecessarily delay disposal of the proceedings as has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Since, there is no material whatsoever on record to justify the impugned order, the Rule is made absolute. The petition is allowed. The order dated 21st August, 2010 by the Additional Sessions Judge IIIrd, Kolhapur in Criminal Revision Application No. 196 of 2010 is set aside. [SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J]