- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1848/2010 Omprakash s/o Madanlal Mantri, age 47 yrs., occu.service, r/o Mantri Galli, Sarafa Road, Beed. Dist.Beed. ...Applicant.. (Org.accused) Versus 1] The State of Maharashtra. 2] Ramkuwar s/o Ramkisan Rathi, age 50 yrs., occu.business, r/o Main Road, Shengaon Tq.Shevgaon Dist.Ahmednagar. ...Respondents... (No.2 Org.complainant) ..... Shri P.K. Lakhotiya, Advocate for applicant. Shri D.V. Tele, APP for respondent no.1. Shri A.A. Mukhedkar, Advocate h/f Shri Raviraj R. Chandak, Advocate for respondent no.2. ..... - 2 - CORAM: A.V. POTDAR, J. DATE: 11.08.2010 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1] Heard counsel for the parties. 2] By the present application, the applicant – original accused in STC No. 372/2002 has assailed the order dated 10.5.2010 passed by JMFC, Shevgaon Dist.Ahmednagar. 3] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of the counsel for the parties and heard finally at the stage of admission. 4] It is not under dispute that the present respondent no.2 has filed complaint u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the applicant. According to the respondent no.2, the cheque issued by the present applicant dated 24.6.2002, when deposited in his bank, returned back with the memo “insufficient funds”. It appears that during the trial, the applicant has denied his signature on the disputed cheque. In the said premises, it appears that an application was moved by the respondent no.2 before the trial Court, which is at Exhibit 74 on the file of the trial Court, to refer the signature of the applicant – accused on the cheque for the opinion of the handwriting expert to verify as to whether the cheque in dispute – - 3 - subject matter of STC No.372/2002, was signed by the applicant – accused or not. 5] It appears that the said application was opposed on behalf of the applicant by filing say at Exhibit 75, in which he has not shown his willingness to refer the signature on the disputed cheque to the handwriting expert. 6] It appears that after hearing the parties, the learned lower Court has passed the order on 10.2.2010 to refer the cheque along with signatures of the applicant – accused for the opinion of the handwriting expert. 7] In this background, heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant as also the counsel for the respondent no.2 – original complainant. 8] It is clear from the application Exhibit 74 filed by the respondent no.2 that as the applicant had disputed his signature on the disputed cheque, he has prayed to refer the signature for the report of the handwriting expert. In the said application, he has prayed for directions to the applicant to put his signature, which is to be referred for verification, in the manner in which he has put his signature on the cheque. It appears that while passing the order on 10.2.2010, it is not clarified by the learned JMFC whether which signature – whether the admitted signature of the applicant, the disputed signature of the applicant on the cheque, is to be referred for the opinion of the handwriting expert. This controversy requires to be resolved by way of order on this application. - 4 - 9] As the signature on the disputed cheque is denied by the applicant – accused, it is necessary to refer the said signature for the opinion of the handwriting expert, which right of the respondent no.2 can not be denied even though vehemently opposed by the applicant. In the premises, by way of clarification following order is passed. 10] Learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Shevgaon, to refer the disputed cheque bearing the signature of the applicant for the opinion of the handwriting expert after obtaining specimen signatures of the applicant, in presence of Superintendent of the concerned Court, and then those admitted signatures and the cheque bearing disputed signature, be referred to the handwriting expert and the report to be called for from the handwriting expert within a period of 30 days, by ordering the concerned to deposit the special fees for urgent verification of the signatures. With this clarification, the application stands disposed of. Rule is made absolute in above terms. (A.V. Potdar, J.) ndk/cr1181021