1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.508 OF 2009. Shrikant S/o Ananda Chinde ... Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra and another ... Respondents. ... Mr.D.R.Adhav, advocate for the petitioner. Mrs.R.D. Reddy, A.P.P.for the State. Mr.R.V.Gore, advocate for the Respondent No.2. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 23.07.2009. PER COURT 1. By this petition, the petitioner impugns order rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, in Criminal Revision Application No.379/2008, whereby Revision Petition filed by him came to be dismissed. 2 2. The petitioner is original accused in a Summary Case No.996/2007, for offence U/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He is facing trial before the learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Gangapur for such offence. His defence before the trial Court is that he issued the cheque in question with his signature but it was subsequently misused by the Respondent/complainant. He asserted that the cheque was issued by way of security towards repayment of the hand loan of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand). According to him, the Respondent manipulated figure of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand) and the other body writing of the cheque afterwards. He filed an application before the learned Judicial Magistrate for sending the cheque in question to the handwriting expert for purpose of ascertaining the age of his signature and age of the body writing including the figure written on the cheque. His intention was to demonstrate that the body writing of the cheque was done afterwards and there is misuse of the cheque. 3 3. The learned Magistrate rejected the application filed by the petitioner. He, therefore, preferred Criminal Revision Application which came to be dismissed by the Court of Sessions. Hence, the petition. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and learned A.P.P. for the State. 5. The only question involved in this petition is as to whether the rejection of the request of the petitioner for sending of the cheque to the handwriting expert is justified. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to rely on "T. Nagappa Vs. Y.R.Muralidhar" 2008 AIR SCW 3349. The Apex Court in the given case held that where there was defence about misuse of the cheque by the complainant, rejection of the application to send the cheque for expert's opinion was improper. It has been held that opportunity must be granted to the accused for adducing the evidence. It is pertinent to note that in the given case, the request was made for referring the cheque in question for examination 4 by the Director of Forensic Laboratory for determining the age of the signature, contending that the Respondent had obtained a signed cheque in the year 1999 as a security for the hand loan of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) which had been paid back, but instead of returning the cheque, the same has been misused by entering a huge amount, which he did not owe to the appellant. The fact situation in the present case is similar to the case of "T. Nagappa Vs. Y.R.Muralidhar" (supra). The defence of the petitioner is that the cheque was misused and though originally he had borrowed Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand) and the cfheque was issued towards security for the repayment, yet, subsequently the body writing was effected in order to show excessive amount by manipulation. Considering the ratio of the case of "T.Nagappa Vs. Y.R.Muralidhar", I have no hesitation in holding that both the impugned orders are improper and liable to be interfered with. 6. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned orders are quashed. The learned 5 Judicial Magistrate is directed to grant the request of the petitioner to send the cheque for opinion of the handwriting expert as prayed for. Rule made absolute accordingly. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/Crwp50809