MP 1 WP3707_10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3707 OF 2010 Ganpati Tatya Mane ... Petitioner Versus Prakash Krishna Pawar and others ... Respondents Mr. Mahindra Deshmukh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. A. V. Chatuphale, Advocate for the Respondent No. 1. Mr. V. B. Konde Deshmukh, APP for the State. CORAM : B. R. GAVAI, J. TUESDAY, JUNE 21, 2011 P. C. : Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. By way of the present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 19th November 2010 vide which the prayer of the present petitioner-complainant for sending his thumb impression for comparing with the thumb impression on the disputed document dated 27th April 1995 to the Finger Print Bureau at Hyderabad came to be rejected. 3. The petitioner has filed a complaint that the accused have fabricated a document dated 27th April 1995 alleged to be falsely executed by him and his wife and thereby misappropriated the property. On an application of the present petitioner, the document was sent for the opinion of the Finger Print Bureau, Pune. The opinion was adverse to the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter filed an application for MP 2 WP3707_10 sending the said document along with specimen thumb impression of himself and his wife to the Finger Print Expert Institute of India at Hyderabad. The same came to be rejected. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this court by way of Writ Petition No. 1370 of 2009. The said petition was disposed of with a liberty that the complainant may apply afresh to the Trial Court for sending the thumb impression for opinion of some Authority which is superior to CID. In view of the liberty granted, the present petitioner moved another application, which came be rejected. Hence, the present petition. 4. The Finger Print Expert Institute of India is a national level organization having expertise in the matter. In that view of the matter, I find that in the interests of justice and with a view that the complainant has full satisfaction that justice is being done to him, the application ought to have been allowed. Needless to state that the costs for such an examination will be borne by the petitioner. 5. In the result, the impugned order dated 19th November 2010 is quashed and set aside. The application filed by the present petitioner, below exhibit-50, is allowed. Necessary steps for obtaining opinion at the earliest be taken within a period of four weeks from today. 6. Needless to state that the costs for such an exercise would be borne by the petitioner. 7. Rule made absolute in the aforesaid terms and conditions. (B. R. GAVAI, J)