1 WP-1512-09.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Mhi CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1512 OF 2009 Manmandir Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit. ... Petitioner Versus Aslam Jalaluddin Mulla & Anr. ... Respondents Mr. Umesh R.Mankapure,Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Sale, Advocate for the respondent No.1. Ms. M.H.Mhatre, APP, for the respondent No.2. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 15th July, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner, who is the original complainant-Bank, had filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act which came to be registered as Criminal Case No.226 of 2008 in the Court of J.M.F.C., Vita. The complaint was filed in April, 2008 on the basis of dishonoured cheque. Evidence on behalf of the complainant was recorded. On 4.10.2008, the accused-respondent made an application before the learned trial Court to refer the cheque to the expert for opinion about the age of signature of the accused on the said cheque. It is material to note that the accused-respondent never disputed that the cheque was 2 WP-1512-09.sxw bearing his signature, but his contention was that he had obtained loan from the Bank in 1997 and at that time his signature was taken on some blank cheque and that blank cheque has been misused in a later loan to file the complaint under Section 138 in the year 2008. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate rejected the application. However, Revision Application was allowed by the Sessions Court and the Sessions Court directed the cheque to be referred to Forensic Laboratory to ascertain the age of the signature of the cheque Exhibit 27. That order is challenged in the present Petition by the complainant-Bank. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner admits that there were loan transactions between the petitioner-Bank and the respondent since 1997 and the loans which were advanced during the years 1997, 1998 and 1999 have been repaid. According to him, the cheque was issued in 2008 with reference to the loan advanced in the year 2001. The question is whether that cheque was issued in 2008 as contended by the petitioner or the petitioner is misusing some old blank cheque. Therefore, expert's opinion is necessary. 4. Taking into consideration these circumstances, I find no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order. Therefore, I see no reason to interfere in the impugned order passed by the Sessions Court. 3 WP-1512-09.sxw The Petition stands dismissed. 5. The concerned Forensic Laboratory shall submit report as early as possible, preferably within six months from the date when the cheque is deposited with it. 6. The parties and the concerned Court to act on the authenticated copy of this Order. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)