1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH NAGPUR Criminal Writ Petition No. 628/2008 Pramod Sheshrao Kongre, aged about 30 years, Occ. Grain Merchant, r/o Khandla, tq. Wani, dist. Yavatmal (Post Shirpur), P.S. Shirpur. .. PETITIONER .. Versus .. 1. State of Maharashtra. 2. Purushottam Dattuji Lute, aged about 40 years, Occ. Grain Broker, r/o Khandla, tq. Wani, dist. Yavatmal. .. RESPONDENTS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. R. M. Patwardhan, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. D. B. Yengal, A.P.P. for respondent no.1 Mr. S. C. Bhalerao, Advocate for respondent no.2. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : R. Y. GANOO, J. DATED:- 20 th JULY, 2009 J U D G M E N T 1. The petition can be heard and disposed of at the stage of admission itself. Hence, Rule is issued. Learned Advocates for the respondents appear and show willingness to dispose of the matter. 2. Petitioner is facing trial in Criminal Complaint Case No. 190/2003 in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Wani (hereinafter 2 referred to as learned ‘trial Judge’). The petitioner tendered an application Exh.-60 praying that handwriting expert Mr. Athale, be examined as his witness to unfold his evidence. The said witness Mr. Athale was permitted by the learned trial Judge to inspect the admitted and disputed documents and submit the report and the said report is tendered in the Court. The learned trial Judge granted the said application by order dated 03.02.2007. 3. Respondent no. 2, feeling aggrieved by this order, filed Criminal Revision Application No. 3/2007 in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Pandharkawda (Kelapur) that revision application came to be decided by order dated 18.04.2007 and the said revision was granted thereby setting aside order dated 03.02.2009. Hence, this petition is filed by the petitioner. 4. I have heard learned Advocates appearing for both the sides. Learned Advocate for the petitioner contended that the petitioner should be permitted to lead evidence and examine the handwriting expert as and by way of defence. As against this. learned Advocate for respondent no. 2 submitted that the documents, on which reliance is being placed by the petitioner, were not shown to the complainant while conducting cross- examination and, therefore, such a course adopted by the petitioner should not be allowed. 3 5. I am of the view that one will have to adhere to the first principle that normally accused should be permitted to unfold his evidence in the best possible manner. In the present case, the petitioner-accused wants to examine the handwriting expert to have his report duly proved and have his defence unfolded. In view of the fact that the handwriting expert was permitted to prepare his report and file it in the Court, it is necessary in the interest of justice to allow the the petitioner to examine the handwriting expert and make out his case before the learned trial Judge. Once, this course is complete, there cannot be any grievance from the petitioner that he is prevented from putting up his defence in the trial. It would be safer to allow the handwriting expert to be examined. I am inclined to allow this petition. Hence, the order. (i) Order dated 18.01.2007 passed in Criminal Revision No. 3/2007 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pandharkawda (Kelapur) is set aside. (ii) Order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Wani below Exh.-60 in Criminal Complaint Case No. 190/2003 dated 03.02.2007 is restored. 4 (iii) The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Wani shall fix a suitable date and proceed with the trial allowing the petitioner to examine the handwriting expert. (iv) After this order is passed, learned Advocate for respondent no. 2 submitted that an order be passed directing the trial Court to dispose of the trial as expeditiously as possible. In view of this, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Wani is directed to dispose of the trial in Criminal Complaint Case No. 190/2003, as expeditiously as possible and preferably by 30.11.2009. (v) It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any views on merits of the matter. All the points and defences are kept open. (vi) Writ petition stands disposed of. Rule accordingly. No order as to costs. JUDGE kahale