1 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2566 OF 2010 Avdhut Ramesh Ahsaykar Petitioner versus Kisanrao Baburao Bankhele and another Respondents Mr.Amol A. Deshpande i/by K.K.Waghmare for petitioner. Mr.Ravindra Pachundkar i/by Dilip Bodake for respondent no.1. Mr.Rajesh More, APP for the State. CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 20th August 2011 PC : 1. In an on going litigation for an offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act moved before the learned JMFC, Ghodegaon, an application was made on 4th February 2009 below Exhibit-83 to refer the cheque in question to the handwriting expert to be examined with the signatures of the petitioner (accused) with the specimen and the disputed writing on the cheque. The learned JMFC vide order dated 1st July 2009 allowed the said application. Being aggrieved, the respondent herein (original complainant) moved the learned Additional Sessions Judge, at Pune in Revision Application No.548 of 2009. The learned Additional Sessions Judge on analyzing the legal position did not agree with the orders of the learned JMFC directing referring the cheque to the handwriting expert, allowed the revision application and refused to entertain application at Exhibit-83. This order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge is questioned in this writ petition. 2. In the application below Exhibit-83 the petitioner had submitted 2 that "the petitioner had issued a blank cheque towards security that too not against any consideration in favour of the complainant. It is pertinent to note that some of the contents of the cheque in dispute is written in Marathi language at the same time some of the contents are mentioned in English language much concern with the figure". 3. One cannot be oblivious that the complaint was filed on 23rd June 2005 while by application below Exhibit-83 a request was made to refer the cheque in question along with other documents to the hand writing expert in 2009. It appears from the record that the petitioner herein filed an application seeking transfer of the case. After rejection of the application seeking transfer of the case, application below Exhibit-83 has been made by the petitioner. 4. The reference given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in his order to the provisions of section 243 of Cr.P.C. which deals with evidence for defence and particularly section 243(1) of the Cr.P.C. which provides that the accused shall then be called upon to enter upon his defence and produce the evidence, at this stage even if skipped, the fact remains that section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act deals with inchoate instrument and the holder in due course as thereof. The legal position is quite illustrated in T.Nagappa Vs. Y.R.Muralidhar (AIR-2008-SC-2010) and also in the matter of Kalyani Bhaskar (Mrs). Vs. M.S.Sampoornam (Mrs). ([2007]- SCC-258). In the set of the above facts, there was no error on the part of learned Additional Sessions Judge in allowing the revision application and refusing to refer the documents to the handwriting expert. The petition lacks merits. Dismissed. (K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.)