1 Cri.WP No.1099/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1099/2010. Quazi Minhaz s/o Quazi Nawabuddin - PETITIONER VERSUS 1)Mirza Mohammed Baig s/o Mirza Khalid Baig and Anr. - RESPONDENTS ***** Mr.SK Ashpak Taher Patel, Adv.for Petitioner; Mr.VH Dighe, APP for State. ----- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 7th February, 2011. PER COURT : . Heard. Rejection of order below Exhibit-49 in SCC No.6990/2009, referring the impugned cheques Exhibits-15 to 19 to Hand- writing expert to ascertain respective age of the ink is questioned by the petitioner/accused. 2) The learned Judge, while rejecting the contention, based on available record, opined that the petitioner/accused was more keen in protracting the matter. The matter has even reached the stage of recording statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He desired to examine 2 Cri.WP No.1099/2010 witnesses in his support, sufficient time and opportunities were given and then the application, sending/referring the disputed cheques (Exhibits 15 to 19) to Handwriting expert was made. 3) The learned Judge also found, while examining himself the accused on 26.7.2010, moved an application (Exhibit-42) to file certain documents on record. Consequently, he could not be cross-examined on the same day. Thereafter on 16.8.2010, below Exhibits-43 and 44, the accused placed some documents; on 27.8.2010, the accused sought exemption and after this span of time, he moved application (Exhibit-46) to issue summons to two witnesses cited in the said application. The said application was allowed. Thereafter the learned Judge has elaborately pointed, at the time of filing of Exhibit-46 for summoning the witnesses the accused was well aware that out of these two witnesses, one witness was resident of Mumbai, but he simply moved an application to issue summons through the Court. Consequently, the development took time and re-issuance of summons was required to be directed. This elaborate observation of the learned Judge, made him to believe that the accused/petitioner was more keen in protracting the matter. I do not wish to controvert these observations as they are 3 Cri.WP No.1099/2010 supported from the record. 4) The age of the cheques would not basically go to the root of the matter as several questions were put to the complainant from the side of the accused/petitioner about nature of jurisdiction. Consequently, rejection to refer the documents, the cheques, to the hand-writing expert to verify its age, being in tune to the record, does not call for any interference. The writ petition is sans merit, dismissed. ( K.U.CHANDIWAL ) JUDGE bdv/