..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2108 OF 2008 Shri.Rajendrasingh Sopanrao Suryawanshi. ..Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra and Anr. ..Respondents. .... Mr.Amit Sale, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms.A.A.Mane, APP, for State. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 21st November, 2008. DATED : 21st November, 2008. DATED : 21st November, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner - orig.accused. The petitioner is facing prosecution in a case under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The said case is pending before the learned J.M.F.C., Pandharpur and it is numbered as S.T.C. No.376 of 2007. 2. In the said proceedings, the petitioner has preferred an application for sending the disputed cheques to the handwrting expert. The learned Magistrate by order dated 27.8.2008 disposed of the ..(2).. said application holding that the cross-examination of the complainant is yet to be resumed, the accused is yet to enter upon his defence and in view of these facts the application is premature and the same will be decided on its merit after the closure of the evidence of the complainant. Being aggrieved by this order, this Petition has been preferred. 3. The learned Advocate for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kalyani Bhaskar (Mrs.) vs. Kalyani Bhaskar (Mrs.) vs. Kalyani Bhaskar (Mrs.) vs. M.S.Sampoornam (Mrs.) M.S.Sampoornam (Mrs.) M.S.Sampoornam (Mrs.) reported in (2007) 2 Supreme (2007) 2 Supreme (2007) 2 Supreme Court Cases 258 Court Cases 258 Court Cases 258. Reliance is placed on para-12 of the said decision. On perusal of the said decision, it is seen that the appellant therein requested for sending cheque in question for the opinion of the handwriting expert after the respondent had closed her evidence. The Supreme Court observed that the learned Magistrate should have granted such a request. However, in the present case it is seen that the complainant has not yet closed his evidence. In fact as stated earlier, the cross-examination of the complainant has yet to be resumed on the part of the petitioner. In this view of the matter, the ..(3).. learned Magistrate has rightly observed that the application is premature and the same would be decided on its merit after the closure of evidence of the complainant. In this view of the matter, no interference is called for at this stage. Writ Petition is rejected. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)