^ nate io.27S Radhekrishna Gupta, S;o B'njajan!al Gupta, aged about 45 years, Proprietor-Shri Balaji Saies Corporaii'ons Limited, Cinema Lines, Rajnandgaon (CG) Dhanendra Kumar Lunia, •S.'o Prithviram Lunia, aged about 35 years, R/o Goiebazar, Khairagarh, Tehsil and District-Rajnandgaon (Cg) Present: Shri Anup Mazumdar, counset for the petitioner. S'nri Sanjay K. Aganval with Shri Sourabh Sharma, counsel for respondent. (Passed on 24.01.2008$ Heard on admission. tetsfeit.t^...- |iBiESJf3S?Bd-S (2) ln this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, t'ne petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 5.5.2007 passed by the Additional iessions Judge, Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon in criminal revision No.128/2006, whereby the order dated 9.11.2006 passed by the Additional Chief Judicjal f^iagistrate, Khairagarh in criminal case N0.72S/199S under Section 138 of the Negotiabie Instruments Act, (henceforth the Act) was affirmed, whereby the appiication dated 4.11.200e fiied by the pet'rtioner herein for permission to adduce the evidence of a hand writing expert for proving the age of the endorsement on the Cheque was rejected. (3) Learned counsel for the petitioner did not dispute that in proceedings under Section 138 of the Act instiated by the respondent herein against the petitioner due So dishonour of a Chequ® F. No.037754 dated 9.9.1999 for Rs.1,00,000/- issued by the petitioner in favour of the respondent, an appiication was fiied on behaSf of the : .,<!l'''ss;e!^ .'•?'-'">. ^;^. ^;.-<fc6, '^ -^- petitioner on 21.2.2006 for getting the Cheque and one promissory note dated 2.9.1999 examined by a handwriting expert. The said application was dismissed by an order dated 20.2.2006 passed by the Additional Chief Judiciai Magistrate, Khairagarh. A criminal i-evision No.29/2006 was preferred against the said order which wss dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Khairagarh by order 7.8.2006. IteieSINIi (4) It is not In dispute that the said order dated 7.8.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Khairagarh has attained finaiity. Learned counsei for 'the petitioner further did not dispute that the petitioner herein had signed a promissory note dated 2.9.1999 for Rs.1,00,000/- which is Annexure A-5. It is also not disputed that Cneque F. No.037754 (Annexure A-4) dated 9.9.1999 was signed by the petitioner in between the seal reading "for Shri Balaji Sales Corporation-Proprietor'. ^•^•:^.*^f'^^^ (5) The petitioner herein moved another application on 4.11.2006 before the Additionai Chief Judicial Magistraie, Khairagarh for permission to get the opinion from the hand writing expert regarding the age of the endorsement on the Cheque (Annexure A-4). This appiication was rejected by the Additional Chief judicial Magistrate, Khairagarh by order dated 9.11.2006 in view of the rejection of the earlier application dated 21.2.2006 vide order dated 20.2.2006 passed by the Additionai Chiefjudicial Magistrate, Khairagarh and the order passed in criminal revision No.29/2006 by the Additionaf Sessions Judge, Khairagarh on 7.8.2006. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred criminal revision. The Learned Sessions Judge whiie dismissina the criminai revlsion further observed that under the science ofexamination of the disputed hand writing, opinion about the age of the endorsement of the Cheque couid not be given. (6) Learned counsel for the petitioner p!aced reliance on Uow Jhansi Lakshmi Bai Vs. Pradesh 90 and Ms Narayana Menon Alias Mani Vs. State of kerala i' s ;''-'7ii^. ;.^ /' : ^.' ?^' ''.. ^r'y '^m--wy ^ i) 6 Supreme Court Cases 39 and also referred to the provisions contained under Section 118 and 139 ofthe Act. i'l (7) Having considered the arguments advanced by the leamed counsel for the petitioner, 1 have perused the impugned order and am of the considered opinion that in view of the reiection of the application dated 21.2.2006 and the orders passed thereon by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and the learned Additionai Sessions Judge in criminai revision having attained finality, the dismissai of the appiication for determining the age of the endorsement on the cheque (Annexure A-4) by seeking opinion from the hand writing expert was rightly rejected by the Courts below. So far as the case of 'Uppu Jhansi Lakshmi Bas '(supra) is concerned, the facts mentioned in the case are i'oailv distinQuishable because in the present case, it is not in dispute that the earlier orders passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Maaistrate as aiso in criminai revision have attalned finaiity and that the cheque (Annexure A-4) as also the promissory note (Annexure A-5) bears the signatures of the petitioner under the seaf of Shri "Balaji Saies Corporation". (8) In this view of the matter, in my considered oplnion, there is nothing to show that an abuse of process of Court or failure ofjustice has occurred by the refusai to grant permission to the petitioner to get fhe age of the endorsement on the cheque (Annexure A-4) examined by the hand writing expert. (9) No ground for invoking the jurisdictlon under Section 482 is made out. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed at the stage of admission. Priya (10) tn view of the above, I.A. No.1/2007 for grant of stay also stands dismissed. Dilip Sdl- Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge