IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B.CRIMINAL MISC.PETITION NO.1994/2010. Dr.Bhinvaram Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. Date of Order :- 29/10/2010. HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Santosh Singh Shekhawat for petitioner. Shri N.R. Saran, Public Prosecutor for State. ******* BY THE COURT:- This criminal misc.petition u/S.482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the accused petitioner against the order of the trial court dated 22/5/2010 by which application of the petitioner for sending the cheque for examination of the signatures to the hand writing expert has been rejected. Contention of the learned counsel for petitioner is that application filed by the petitioner should have been allowed because whatever amount filled in the cheque was filled in by the complainant himself in his own hand writing and that there was no proof of any liability of this amount therefore cheque should have been sent for examination of signatures to the hand writing expert. Trial court has erred in law in rejecting the application only because petitioner did not deny his signatures. Mere non denial of the signatures does not prove that amount was filled in the cheque by the accused petitioner. In support of his argument, he has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Jitendra Bansal Vs. Gauri Shankar : 2009 WLC (Raj.) UC 61. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the petition. On perusal of the impugned order, I find that trial court has taken into consideration the reply to that application filed by the complainant and dealt with the arguments made by both the parties. In reply to the application, complainant has stated that as to if the accused got the amount filled in the cheque from someone or himself, it is not known to the complainant but the cheque was given by the accused to him and that accused was not denying his signatures. Learned trial court has observed that even if argument of the learned counsel appearing for the accused that he has given the cheque to the complainant and signatures on the cheque were not of his own is accepted, but he has not explained as to for what reason the cheque was given by him. When the accused was not denying his signatures and when it is not alleged in the application as to with whose hand writing, writing on the cheque should be got compared with, learned trial court rejected the application. When there is no dispute between the parties that amount indicated in the cheque was not filled in by the accused or it can be by someone else, there was no need to send the cheque to the hand writing expert for examination of signatures. What would be effect of this, would be seen by the learned trial court at the time of final argument because even complainant himself does not definitely insist that this cheque was filled in by the accused petitioner. In those facts, learned trial court did not commit any error in rejecting the application as there was no necessity for sending the cheque for examination of signatures to the hand writing expert. The cited judgment is distinguishable because in that case accused had even denied his signatures and therefore, ratio of the same cannot be applied herein. This criminal misc.petition u/S.482 Cr.P.C. is accordingly dismissed however with the aforesaid observation. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B.CRIMINAL MISC.STAY APPLICATION NO.1881/2010. IN S.B.CRIMINAL MISC.PETITION NO.1994/2010. Dr.Bhinvaram Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. Date of Order :- 29/10/2010. HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Santosh Singh Shekhawat for applicant- petitioner. Shri N.R. Saran, Public Prosecutor for State. ******* BY THE COURT:- Consequent upon dismissal of the main petition, this stay application does not survive and the same is accordingly dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil