1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. JUDGMENT Pawan Kumar Beniwal Vs. Satya Prakash mehant SB CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.1342/2010. Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. DATE OF ORDER: 2nd August, 2010. PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P. PATHAK Mr. Tarun Jain for the petitioner. Mr. Piyush Kumar PP for the State. BY THE COURT:- By this petition under section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has challenged the order dated 25.01.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur in Criminal Revision No. 51/2009 whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed and the order dated 19.08.2009 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sawai Madhopur has been upheld. Briefly stated, the facts for the disposal of the present petition are that the petitioner is facing trial in the court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sawai Madhopur for the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (here-in-after to be referred as, 'the Act'). On 13.07.2009, an application was moved by the petitioner for examination of specimen of his signature on the cheque (Ex.-1) for expert opinion. A reply to the 2 application was filed. The learned trial court after hearing both sides vide order dated 19.08.2009 dismissed the application. The petitioner, having felt aggrieved by this order, preferred a revision petition which was dismissed by the learned revisional court vide its order dated 25.01.2010. Hence, the present misc. petition has been filed. It has been contended by the learned counsel that the learned courts below have not properly appreciated the matter as to whether the petitioner has ever issued the cheque and also that contains his signature. It is also contended that the courts below have committed illegality in comparing the signature from other material available on the file. I have considered the submissions made before me. I do not find any substance in the submissions made before me for the reason that as the payment of the cheque was stopped, it was dishonoured. It was not the stand of the petitioner that the cheque was forged. It further appears from the impugned orders that for last many years, the matter is pendng before the trial court and the petitioner was continuously making prayer in the trial court to give him time to make arrangement to pay the amount of cheque to the complainant-respondent. The evidence in this case has been recorded. In the cross-examination also in relation to signature on the cheque having been forged, nothing has been asked. In the above circumstances, the learned trial court rejected the application moved by the petitioner to get the specimen of his 3 signature examined in relation to the cheque by the expert. The learned revisional court also did not find favour with the petitioner. Thus, on two occasions the petitioner has failed to get relief. Now, this last effort has been made by filing this misc. petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. I do not find any illegality in the orders passed by the learned courts below in rejecting the application moved by the petitioner. This misc. petition, therefore, is liable to be dismissed. In the result, this misc. petition is dismissed. (S.P. PATHAK,J) BBLM