IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1784 OF 2008 AND CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1785 OF 2008 Mr.Bhagwan Pralhad More .. Petitioner (In both the petitions) Vs. Mr.Pandurang Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana, Solapur and others .. Respondents (In both the petitions) Mr.Surel S. Shah for the petitioner in both the petitions. Mrs.P.P.Shinde, A.P.P for the State in Writ Petition No.1784 of 2008. Mr.J.P.Yagnik, A.P.P for the State in Writ Petition No.1785 of 2008. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 05th September 2008. P.C.: . Heard learned advocate appearing for the petitioner. The petitioner has been arraigned as an accused in the complaints filed by the 1st respondent under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. After the recording of cross-examination of the witness examined by the complainant, applications were made by the petitioner in both the complaints contending that the signature appearing on the alleged postal acknowledgment of the demand notice produced by the 1st : 2 : respondent-complainant was not that of the petitioner and therefore, the alleged postal acknowledgment is required to be sent to a handwriting expert alongwith documents on record containing admitted signatures of the petitioner. The said applications were rejected by the learned trial Judge. Revision applications preferred by the petitioner for challenging the said orders have been dismissed. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that when the signature on the alleged acknowledgment was disputed by the petitioner it was necessary for the Court to send the disputed document to the handwriting expert so that the truth can come out before the Court. He submitted that if examination of the disputed document is not made by the handwriting expert, prejudice will be caused to the petitioner. 3. I have carefully considered the submissions. The petitioner has disputed his signature appearing on the alleged postal acknowledgment. The statement of the petitioner under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been recorded and complaints are at the stage where the accused can lead evidence if they so desire. Whether service of notice is effected or not : 3 : and whether the postal acknowledgment bears the signature of the petitioner or not are the questions which will be decided by the trial Court on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties. Apart from contending that there is no proper service of notice, the petitioner can also adduce appropriate evidence. 4. Therefore, no interference can be made with the impugned orders in these petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitions are rejected. However, it is clarified that all contentions of the parties on merits are kept open. (A.S.Oka,J)