1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2269 OF 2008 Yasin Mohammed Gous Inamdar .... Petitioner Vs. Dr. Annasaheb Chougule Urban .... Respondents Co-op. Bank Ltd. & Anr. Mr. Niteen V. Pradhan i/by Ms. Shubhada Khot, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. H.J. Dedhia, APP for State. Coram : SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J. Date : 7th January, 2009 P.C. 1. The petitioner is the accused in Summary Case No.1170 of 2005 filed by respondent No. 1 under Section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Peth, Vadgaon. During course of the trial, respondent No. 1 filed the document at Exhibit 44-C alleged to be a written application by the petitioner for sanction of bill purchase for loan. Since the petitioner disputes the hand-writing and signature on the document, he filed the application at Exhibit 71 for determination of genuineness of hand-writing and signature by referring the document to the hand-writing expert. That application came to be rejected on 13th March,2008. The 2 petitioner then preferred Criminal Revision Application No.60 of 2008 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur. By the order dated 13th September 2008, the criminal revision application also came to be rejected. 2. The only question that arises in the present petition is whether the petitioner should be given an opportunity to lead evidence of hand-writing expert in his defence. The application is opposed by the respondents. It is submitted that in his statement recorded under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner mentioned only two persons to be examined by him in his defence. They are Rajendra Ramgonda Patil, Branch Manager and one Alate, External Auditor. He did not cite any hand-writing expert as his witness. Since the rejection of his application for referring the document to the hand-writing expert, the petitioner had privately forwarded the document to a hand-writing expert by name Mr. Ulhas S. Athale who has given his report dated 24th October 2008. 3. No doubt the petitioner could have referred to his desire to bring in an expert witness on the genuineness of the document. But one cannot take a very 3 technical stand in such matters. The petitioner should get an opportunity to atleast examine the expert to whom he had privately referred the document. Denial of an opportunity to examine the witness would be denial of proper hearing to the petitioner. Therefore, in my opinion, the present petition is required to be allowed. Hence, the petition is allowed. The order dated 29th September 2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur in Criminal Revision Application No.60 of 2008 is hereby set aside. The petitioner is at liberty to examine Mr. Ulhas S. Athale as his witness in Summary Case No.1170 of 2005 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Peth, Vadgaon, Dist.Kolhapur. The petitioner shall not take any unnecessary adjournments in the matter and is directed to complete the evidence within a period of six weeks from today. Issuance of writ be expedited. (SMT.R.P. SONDURBALDOTA,J)