1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.527 OF 2009 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Coram: P.R. Borkar, J. Date : March 08, 2010 1. Heard Shri S.D.Kotkar, Advocate for the applicant and Shri N.C.Garud Advocate for the Respondent. 2. This petition is filed, being aggrieved by the order of rejection of application (Exh.38) in S.T.C. No.393/2007 on 29.5.2009 passed by the learned J.M.F.C. Karjat. The said application was for sending cheque to the handwriting expert for examining the handwriting on the said cheque. 3. Application was challenged on the ground that on 29.5.2009 when the application was moved before the court, the matter was already closed 2 for evidence inasmuch as the matter was already reserved for judgment. Not only that, even though the accused had examined witnesses in defence, he did not make any grievance about handwriting on the cheque. In fact, the accused admitted his signature on the cheque and the application was given only with a view to prolong the matter. 4. The learned Judge observed in paragraph 8 of his judgment that at the time of judgment, the application is filed for sending cheque to handwriting expert for examining handwriting on the said cheque and that the application is made only with a view to prolong the matter. 5. After hearing both sides and perusing papers before this court, it appears that application (Exh.38) for referring the cheque to the 3 handwriting expert was not made by the petitioner-accused at the time of recording his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C or prior to that. In fact, the correct stage to make such an application is when the defence is called upon to lead evdidence. Admittedly, in this case the accused offered himself as a witness and is examined on 6.3.2009 and two months thereafter i.e. on 29.5.2009 application (Exh.38) is given. There is no explanation why such application could not be given earlier. 6. In the circumstances, I am not satisfied that this is a case in which interference by this court is required, more particularly when the matter is reserved for judgment. Therefore, application filed at such a belated stage cannot be considered and deserves to be dismissed. 4 7. Writ Petition therefore, stands dismissed in limini. It is, however, made clear that the petitioner is at liberty to canvass the said point at the time of appeal, if occasion so arises and the appellate court on considering totality of the case, may decide the said point on its own merits. Petition disposed of. pnd/criwp527.09 (P.R.BORKAR, J.)