IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.351 OF 2008 Mahadeo Gopal Kumbhar .. Petitioner Vs. Navjeevan Vikas Seva Sanstha Ltd & Anr. .. Respondents Mr.Satyajeet M. Mirajkar for the petitioner. Mr.D.P.Adsule, A.P.P for the State. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : 10th September 2008. : 10th September 2008. : 10th September 2008. P.C.: . By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 08th August 2008 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class. The petitioner is the accused who is facing various charges. The trial is in progress, and according to the case of the petitioner, at present prosecution witness by the name Ananda Parale is in the witness box who is under cross examination by the advocate for the petitioner. 2. An application was filed by the petitioner at Exhibit 60 praying that admitted signatures of the witness Mr.Ananda Parale and the documents mentioned in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the said application be sent to handwriting expert for obtaining his opinion as regards the handwriting in the said documents. The contention of the petitioner seems to be that the petitioner has : 2 : not signed the said documents and the same are signed by the witness Ananda Parale. The documents mentioned in paragraph 7 of the application are on the record of the case and the documents referred to in paragraph 8 have not been produced on record. The learned trial Judge has rejected the application on the ground that the same has been belatedly filed and there is no explanation for not filing the application earlier. 3. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the petitioner wants to prove that the aforesaid documents are not signed by him but the same are signed by the witness Ananda Parale. He submitted that the learned Judge has committed an error by rejecting the application on ground of delay in as much as the application has been made after commencement of trial. He has invited my attention to cross examination of the prosecution witness Manohar Vinayak Chandorikar. He, therefore, submitted that in view of section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 the learned Judge ought to have allowed the application. 4. I have considered the submissions. The witness Ananda Parale is still in the witness box and he is under cross examination by the advocate for the petitioner. The documents referred to in paragraph 8 of : 3 : the application at Exhibit 60 are not on record and the witness is not yet confronted with the said documents. It is true that the learned trial Judge could not have rejected the application on the ground that the same has been belatedly filed. As a matter of fact, the petitioner has alleged that disputed documents have been signed by the witness Ananda Parale who is still under cross examination. As of today, the recording of evidence on the side of the prosecution is not yet completed. The cross examination of the witness Ananda Parale who has allegedly signed the disputed documents is not yet complete. Only on this ground, the application made by the petitioner could not have been entertained by the learned Judge. Therefore, though the grounds mentioned in the impugned order for rejection are not correct, the learned trial Judge was justified in not entertaining the application at Exhibit 60 when the witness Ananda Parale is still under the cross examination. 5. Hence, this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not entertained. It is however made clear that notwithstanding the rejection of the application at Exhibit 60, it will be open for the petitioner to take out appropriate application at appropriate stage. All contentions of the petitioner in : 4 : the pending trial are kept open. (A.S.Oka,J)