1 IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. APPELLATE JURISDICTION. APPELLATE JURISDICTION. WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 67 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 67 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 67 OF 2008 Shri Salim Shaikh : Petitioner versus Smt.Pushpa Prakash Parmar and others. : Respondents. Mr.K.K.Waghmare for the petitioner. Mr.A.S.Shitole, APP, for the State. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.P.DESHPANDE, J. : A.P.DESHPANDE, J. : A.P.DESHPANDE, J. DATED DATED DATED : JANUARY 28, 2008. : JANUARY 28, 2008. : JANUARY 28, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. After closer of the evidence of complainant, the case was fixed for defence evidence. The case pertains to the dishonour of the cheque and consequential filing of the complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. A suggestion was given to the 2 complainant that the signatures on some of the documents including the cheque are not that of the accused. The accused moved an application for referring the disputed signatures to the Hand Writing Expert. The trial Court rejected the said application by observing that at present there is hardly any evidence to support the defence that the signatures on the cheque and the challan are forged signatures of the complainant. Reading of the impugned order reveals that after the defence leads the evidence, the request of the accused can be considered. To put it in other words, the application moved by the accused for forwarding the disputed signatures to the Hand Writing Expert has been rejected being premature. In view of this, I do not propose to interfere with the impugned order. However, it shall be open to the accused to move an application in that regard after he leads oral evidence. The petition, thus, rejected. [A.P.DESHPANDE,J] [A.P.DESHPANDE,J] [A.P.DESHPANDE,J]