IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.18672 of 2009 Kali Charan Thakur, son of Late Bujhawan Thakur, village Chand Sarai, PS Jandaha, district Vaishali – petitioner. Vs. 1) The State of Bihar, 2) Sant Lal Thakur, 3) Nandlal Thakur, 4) Kant Lal Thakur, all sons of Late Parichan Thakur, village Chand Sarai, PS Jandaha, district Vaishali. 5) Mahendra Chaudhari, Sarpanch, Chand Sarai, Hasain Sarai, village Biru Patti, PS Jandaha, district Vaishali – opp. parties. 3 4.1.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. This application has been filed for quashing the order, dated 23.3.2009 passed by the Sessions Judge, Vaishali in Cr.Revision No. 33/2009 by which the learned Judge has reversed the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Hajipur rejecting the petition of the defence to get the signature of Ramkahis Thakur examined by a local expert. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was purchaser of a piece of land from the daughter of Ramkahis Thakur. It is alleged that in the F.I.R. that opposite parties 2 to 4 had filed a petition before the Consolidation Officer, Jandaha in the name of Ramkasis Thakur who was already dead at the time of filing of the petition. During investigation the signature of Ramkahis Thakur was sent to the Government expert for examination who gave opinion in favour of the prosecution stating therein that the petition filed before the Consolidation Officer does not bear the signature of Ramkahis Thakur. Two facts needs to be determined by the court below 2 before concluding whether the signature of Ramkahis was on the petition filed before the Consolidation Officer and secondly whether in fact Ramkahis was alive at the time of filing of the said petition. The defence has taken a plea that in fact the signature produced by the petitioner (through the sale deed) admitted as the signature of Ramkahis Thakur does not tally with the signature on the petition filed before the Consolidation Officer. In a case of such a nature where the entire facts depends on two questions raised earlier, I do not think that the court is unjustified in allowing the defence plea that he should be permitted to get the signature verified by an expert. The opinion of the expert vis- à-vis the Government expert would of course be subject to the submissions made on behalf of the parties during the trial. This court accordingly finds no merit in this application. However, at the same time I direct the court below to fix a time frame not exceeding more than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to get the signature verified and be produced in court. This application is dismissed with the aforesaid observations. haque (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)