appln2479-10.sxw jpc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2479 OF 2010 Vasumati Suryakant Shah .. Applicant Versus Ajay Singh and another .. Respondents Ms. Mallika Ingale for the Applicant Mrs. V. R. Bhosale, APP for the State CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATE : 6th May, 2011. P.C.: 1. Leave to amend the title so as to show the applicant as complainant instead of accused. Amendment to be effected immediately. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, who is complainant. Inspite of service, none appears for the respondent- accused. 3. The complainant filed a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the year 2007 and was registered as complaint No.430169/SS/07 and is pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 43rd Court, Borivali. During the cross examination of the complainant, on behalf of the accused, in November, 2008, one receipt marked Exhibit D-1 was shown to the complainant and she admitted the signature but she denied that she had executed the receipt and received the money. 1 appln2479-10.sxw According to the complainant, only folded part of the document was shown to her and was asked whether the signature on the document was her. According to the complainant, later on she took opinion of a private handwriting expert and came to know that the signature which was shown to her was actually forged and thus the forged document was shown to her in the cross examination. In view of this, the complainant filed an application on 17/7/2009 to refer the said receipt Exh.-D-1 to Handwriting Expert for opinion. That application was opposed and the trial Court rejected the said application on the ground that the document is already produced and the Court can very well compare the signature on the document with the admitted signatures of the complainant. That order is challenged in the present application. 4. It is settled position of law that though the Court can compare the signatures and handwriting of documents with the admitted signatures or handwriting still, normally the Court should not enter into comparison himself, unless it is absolutely necessary. In the present case, it appears to be the contention of the complainant that the signature on the document Exh.-D-1 which was shown to her during cross examination is forged and this is supported by the opinion of a private Handwriting Expert, obtained by her. In view of the circumstances it would be in the interest of justice to refer the document Exh.D-1 to the 2 appln2479-10.sxw Handwriting expert for authoritative authenticate opinion. In view of the facts and circumstances, the impugned order passed by the magistrate appears to be wrong and is liable to be set aside. extend extent 5. For the of the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order is set aside and the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 43rd Court, Borivali is hereby directed to refer the disputed document Exh.D-1 to Handwriting Expert along with admitted signatures of the complainant for opinion. 6. The complainant shall initially bear the expenses of the handwriting expert and in case, it is revealed that the said document is forged, the accused will be required to pay the cost and the Trial Court shall also take appropriate action for prosecution of the accused for producing forged evidence before the Court. 7. The application stands disposed of accordingly. ( J.H. BHATIA, J. ) 3