1 APL 395.11.sxw JPP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 395 OF 2011 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 396 OF 2011 Deepak Sevantilal Javeri. ... Applicant. V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ... Respondents. Mr. Shardul Singh a/w. Mr. Devsan Mohanty i/b. M/s. Mohanty & Associates for the Applicant. Mr. Rajesh More, APP for the State in APL No.395/11. Mr. S.A. Shaikh, APP for the State. CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATED : 04th OCTOBER 2011. P.C. :- Heard. 2. An application for sending the disputed writing in the cheque for examination by handwriting expert was moved below Exhibit 754 in C.C. No.1194/SS/05 before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai, rejection thereof by order dated 1st April 2011 is questioned. 3. The learned Counsel for the Accused/Applicant submits that even if the prosecution commenced in the year 2000, the complainant has closed the evidence on 2008. On 13th 2 APL 395.11.sxw August 2010, the Accused/Applicant has given his defence and on 15.11.2010, within the permissible time limit,he has made application sending the document for expert’s analysis and hence, there is no delay. According to learned Counsel, the order calls for interference on these two grounds. The learned Counsel exhaustively explained Section 243(2) of Cr.P.C., how it is obligatory on the part of the learned Judge to entertain the Application for issuance of process to a defence witness. 4. The interpretation carried by the learned Counsel to Section 243(2) of Cr.P.C. does not call adverse comment. However, its applicability to the fact situation is not contemplated. The document of the cheque which is in controversy carries to import of Section 20 of Negotiable Instruments Act which has its parameter indicated in the Judgment of T. Nagappa v/s. Y.R. Muralidhar (2008 All MR (Cri.) 1945 (S.C.). The evidence of the Accused/Applicant at page 107 in the proceedings illustrate, his apprehension that hand writing in the cheque could be of the Complainant. Even if it is so, however, it is not primarily change the role of the Applicant as desires to be created or raised. Rejection by the learned Judge of the Application on the belated grounds is flowing in tune with the record coupled with legal position and does not support Accused/Applicant. Application lacks merit. Dismissed. (K.U. CHANDIWAL,J.) 3 APL 395.11.sxw